Preamble

Morning Sitting

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock a.m.

TRANSPORT BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

10.0 a.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: On a point of order. I do not want to detain the House, but I would like to call attention to the difficulty in which Scottish Members have been placed. We are sitting on the continued Committee stage of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and there are many Members who, to my knowledge, wish to participate in the Transport Bill proceedings this morning.
Is there any machinery whereby a communication between the Floor of the House and the Committee can be maintained, so that Members can follow at a distance the progress of the debate this morning and so determine when to leave the Committee so as to attend the House?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman. It has been put to me before. I have then made the suggestion that hon. Members must keep in contact with each other. The Chair cannot undertake to help on this very difficult problem.

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order. While understanding the position, I wonder whether, as there are a number of suitable places upstairs, it would be possible to put up on pieces of paper an indication of what Amendment has been reached. There are many areas of Scotland specifically affected, and if hon. Members could be informed in this way it would be of great advantage.

Mr. Speaker: That responsibility must lie with hon. Members. I do not think that I can add to the burden of the Chair.

Clause 9

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS, AUTHORITIES AND EXECUTIVES

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 14, line 7, leave out from ' section' to end of line 14 and insert:
' but the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system are compatible with—

(i) the town planning and traffic and traffic and parking policies of the councils of constituent areas; and
(ii) the encouragement of safety;

and that the decisions will be taken within the framework of economic criteria which will enable full comparison to be made between the choices available'.


With this Amendment we reach the nub of the P.T.A. principle, because embodied in the words of the Amendment are included all the issues which have been discussed, and which have to be considered when one is trying to agree about the main purposes of passenger transport authorities. Until last night I had always been mystified by the Minister of State's view of passenger transport authorities, and the work that they were to do in the conurbations. It was only when I heard him explain what he thought they were that I began to understand why he was passionately in favour of them. He was talking of the very wide powers they had for planning, highway, traffic management and over the operation and co-ordination of bus services.
My difficulty was that the powers he was then ascribing to the P.T.A.S are not powers existing in the Bill. All through Committee stage we have been arguing that the Bill would have been a great deal better if these powers had existed. I am worried about the sort of relationship which will exist between the local authorities in whose hands lie the planning powers for virtually all the ancillary areas associated with transport and the passenger transport executive who will be responsible for running the buses.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the purpose of the executive, as outlined by the Minister of State last night, will be


achieved by providing places for the consumption of food and drink, car parks and equipment to repair motor vehicles?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is quite right in drawing attention to this, because these functions are totally irrelevant. This is simply a doctrinal flourish, introduced by the previous Minister for political purposes.
I am also concerned that the powers which the Minister of State ascribed last night to the passenger transport authorities are not in this legislation. I want to read the words which I seek to delete from the Bill. These are the words supposed to define the relationship between the new authority and the existing local authorities who are the planning authorities. The relevant words are that the passenger transport authorities shall have due regard
… to the contribution to the effective implementation by the councils of constituent areas of town planning and parking policies which can be made by public transport services which through their efficiency and convenience attract persons to use those services rather than other means of transport …
Those words when analysed are nothing more than a series of platitudes strung together for the sake of giving some semblance of respectability to the objectives of the P.T.A.s. Under a detailed analysis they do not contain a remit to the P.T.A.s which makes any sense at all. The authorities are expected to have due regard only to the plans of the local authorities. On this basis one is not placed in a position where one has to subject oneself to local authority plans. It is possible that there would be situations where local authority plans in all the major land use problems would not be followed by the passenger transport authorities. This makes a nonsense of the planning of our cities for transport purposes.
We turn to the fundamental problem, that we must start with the problem of planning land use. We must deal with the highway and traffic management problems and the problems of the cars before we can decide what to do in the cities. To tackle the problem from the other way, to tinker around with the ownership of buses, is to completely misunderstand the problem. The Minister gave a false impression of our position last night,

which is very vital. We have never said that we were against the concept of passenger transport authorities.
I have said clearly, that such authorities, as consultative organisations, co-ordinative bodies, are a vital necessity in the conurbations. We have objected to these proposals because they were not based upon co-ordinating and consultative organisations. We want to remedy these vague words, which do not make any practical sense in terms of a remit to the people who have to carry this out, and in their place we want to substitute words which are clearer in their intentions and in the way in which they will be interpreted.
We want to define the relationship between the authority and its executives and the local authority much more clearly. Our Amendment says:
… the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system"—
a passenger transport system are compatible with—
 (i) the town planning and traffic and traffic parking policies of the councils of constituent areas— 
this is the first point. Secondly, that they are compatible with
 (ii) the encouragement of safety",
which is not a point of difference between us. Our third point is
 that the decisions will be taken within the framework of economic criteria which will enable full comparison to be made between the choices available.
I was surprised that it was necessary for me to draft this Amendment, because the Minister of State gave me a specific assurance in Committee that he would look at the problem. He said:
 I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tavistock that we need much more cost benefit analysis and undoubtedly one of the major tasks of the P.T.As. will be to improve and refine the analysis on which to base decisions about where money should be invested, comparing the return on investment in a road network with a comparable investment in facilities for public transport, providing new types of car parking facilities, interchange facilities and so on.
The hon. Gentleman also said a little later:
… we are prepared to reconsider the whole of this wording in respect of the terms of reference of the P.T.As. … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 1st February, 1968; c. 515.]


I was disappointed that he did not think that the Clause needed any redrafting.
When we consider the third point, the question of financial discipline, we come to the greatest area of anxiety about the sort of things that could go on if the strictest terms are not imposed on the P.T.As. This is an area in which vast sums of money will be invested, probably at an increasing rate, particularly as we move into the next decade. It is very easy for investment decisions of the kind that will be made in the conurbations as 1:0 whether they have rigid transit systems, encourage buses by grants, build car parks or roads, to be made on purely subjective grounds by local people who feel that it would be nice to have a ring road, or who think, "Because Manchester has a rapid transit system, we should have one in Liverpool". These considerations can enter into the attitude of any legislature, however sophisticated it may be.
We want to make it absolutely clear to the P.T.A.s that there should be only the strictest criteria as guidelines. We wish to make quite sure that before any major investment takes place in the conurbations there will be the most detailed cost-benefit analysis and that decisions will be reached on the basis that the return from the money invested is the maximum that could be obtained in that area having regard to all the factors involved, whether it is invested in roads, car parking or other things.
This is a vital concept. As Buchanan warned us, as the century draws to a close we shall have to face up to the most massive investment in our cities, on a scale not dreamed of by many people hitherto. There will be the most appalling consequences if we do not get the criteria right before this investment starts. As the investment programme in roads switches, as I believe it will, from the major motorway grid up and down the country to rebuilding city road networks it is vital to understand the criteria on which the decisions should be made.
Although the Minister conceded in Committee that he supports our general ideas, it would be a great deal better if they could be incorporated in the Bill, and then everybody would be quite clear what was intended by, apparently, both sides of the Committee when we discussed the matter. There is no issue between us on political grounds on this matter. The

Amendment simply deals with what both sides of the House understands to be the transportation problems involved.
I therefore hope that even at this late stage the Minister will accept our Amendment as a genuine attempt to try to reconcile the planning responsibilities of the divergent bodies and to introduce an atmosphere of economic necessity into the decisions that must be made. That would not prejudice his ideas for the Bill, but would give a clearer remit to those people who will have to have to carry out the Government's plans.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has squeezed every morsel that he could out of his speech by way of explanation. No one would disagree with his objectives, although he and his colleagues have not shown any great enthusiasm for setting up the passenger transport authorities. He said that no hon. Member opposite is against them, but anyone reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings would have great difficulties in seeing that.
By his Amendment the hon. Member is trying to establish that there will be better planning and a better outlook on the part of those responsible for the various local authority functions within the areas of the P.T.A.s. Local authorities are for the first time to be welded into a large area for transport purposes, transport services are to be dovetailed to meet the needs of the people in the area, where previously they have been dealt with—or attempts have been made to deal with them—in a much more piecemeal fashion. We shall have a larger area with greater rating ability and for the first time a passenger transport authority charged with the sole function of operating transport in a way that will suit the needs of the area and not just one local authority.
The hon. Gentleman says in paragraph (i) of the Amendment that he wants decisions to be compatible with
 the town planning and traffic and traffic and parking policies of the councils of constituent areas.
But the P.T.A.s are to be composed in the main of councillors drawn from each of the constituent authorities. Only a


small minority—one-seventh—will be nominated by the Minister of Transport. We shall have for the first time a body directly charged with the betterment— perfection, if one likes—of the system of dealing with the transport needs of a much wider area than anything we have had before, on which will be representatives of each of the local authorities within the area.
This representation will be reflected in the executive, the professional people carrying out the P.T.A.'s directives. It is right to assume that the constituent authorities will mould their transport policy according to the needs, wishes and directions of the P.T.A. Therefore, instead of having piecemeal plans to deal with transport needs as we have had in the past we shall have a wider outlook.
The hon. Member brings in the encouragement of safety in paragraph (ii) of the Amendment. Every right hon. and hon. Member through the years, especially in the past decade, has taken an increasing interest in safety matters of all kinds, but particularly safety on the roads, because of the mounting toll of deaths and injuries on them. I served on a local authority, first in a small burgh and then on the county council. We had our road safety provisions and encouragement of safety on a county basis. This was much better than having it on a piecemeal local authority basis, and it has worked very well. There are questions about paid officers and amalgamation of small burghs, but here for the first time we have a high-powered passenger transport authority and among its first duties and responsibilities will be the encouragement of safety provisions.
The fears which the hon. Member has expressed are ill-founded. Although we may not have the protection which all of us would like to see in transport matters, we are moving forward—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that in the Amendment precisely the same words are included with reference to safety as those in the original Government draft.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member must not pull me away from my theme. I am not talking about the actual words. Of course they are the same, but the hon.

Member appears to imagine that he will get a better functioning of safety provisions by means of the Amendment. My claim is that safety provisions will be much better because transport as such will have a much larger sweep of power than ever before.
That is because it will be on a wide-ranging basis with a top-powered executive backed by the directions of the passenger transport authorities, composed in the main of local authority delegates, who are bound to make an impact. They will model the provisions to suit the traffic in the area and to meet the needs. They will draft the plans and mobilise the transport. They will do everything possible to meet the end product, the needs of the people residing in the area or coming into or out of the area.
I am a little disturbed about the last words in the Amendment. The hon. Member spent some time explaining that the decision would be taken within the framework of economic criteria which would enable full comparison to be made between the choices available. I am not sure whether he was dealing with the actual provision of services, or whether there will be economic criteria for each service provided by a passenger transport authority.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltine indicated assent.

Mr. Manuel: I thought that was so, but the hon. Member's hon. Friends do not believe these criteria to be socially necessary for railway services.
The Minister has been inundated with protests when it has been proposed that certain lines should be closed and during the whole period in which the Beeching policy applied. Whenever a railway was to be closed there were all sorts of arguments. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and I have appeared before a transport users' consultative committee to argue for the retention of lines which are socially necessary but which are losing large sums of money.
I am against the passenger transport authority being put into a straitjacket by any decision incorporated in the Bill whereby the authority would not be able to make certain that a service which was losing money would be paid for by a more lucrative service if the one which


was losing was socially necessary. The hon. Member for Tavistock said that he wanted each service to pay.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I did not say that I wanted each service to pay. I said that I wanted each service to be costed. We could then make a decision on an economic basis of which service can stay, although many which stayed would stay on social grounds.

Mr. Manuel: I am glad that the hon. Member has said that and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. We are completely agreed that a service should be costed in the same way as the railway workshops are.
As one who has taken an interest in transport matters for years, I am certain that this is a great step forward. I do not say that it is perfection; no one would say that. None of us is satisfied with transport, even though we have been struggling for many years to get our ideas incorporated in legislation and to embody certain criteria in which we believe, but this is a great step forward.
I hope that the House will seriously consider not damping the enthusiasm of those who consider that this is the right way forward and that hon. Members will help rather than obstruct them by cramping their efforts by too many restrictions.

Mr. George Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us have to go to a Committee which is meeting upstairs. Can you tell me whether special arrangements have been made for ensuring that those who stay here may be told when there is a Division in a Committee upstairs, so that we can carry out our duties in both places?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was not present when I ruled on the same point earlier. The Chair cannot undertake communications between the Committee and the House. Hon. Members must keep in touch with their hon. Friends.

Mr. Bessell: I assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that I would not support this Amendment if I believed that it would result in all passenger transport services being judged solely upon their economic viability. As I read the Amendment, it

in no way conflicts with the provisions of Clause 36, which make allowance for the continuation of passenger transport services where they are socially necessary. The hon. Member and I agree that that is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.
This Amendment is of considerable importance. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) was right when he said that here we come to the nub of all the discussions we have had in the House and in Standing Committee F on the concept and purpose of the passenger transport areas, the authorities and the executives. He was also right when he said that this is not a part issue. As worded, the Amendment does nothing but strengthen the ideas and concept of the passenger transport authority as explained by the Minister of State last night.
The Minister of State told us that the purpose, the one objective which he cherishes, is that the passenger transport authorities shall succeed in properly co-ordinating passenger transport services, relieving congestion, and providing additional safety for users of private and public transport. That is an objective with which all of us are in complete agreement.
The Amendment does not in any way conflict with that idea, or, indeed, that ideal. Instead, it strengthens it. I am anxious that the passenger transport authorities shall work in such a way that they will not only assist local authorities, but will not conflict with the plans and work already carried out by many local authorities to the benefit of local communities and which are vital to the welfare of the areas concerned.
10.30 a.m.
The Amendment states that the decisions which are to be taken by the authorities must be compatible with the town planning and traffic policies of the councils of the constituent areas. Plymouth, for example, is an area which could be dangerous in such an authority if it dominated the surrounding area, represented in constituency terms by the hon. Member for Tavistock, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and myself.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bessell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
A great amount of work has been carried out in Plymouth during the last 25 years in town planning and the provision of car parking and of passenger transport services. Plymouth has done a first-class job. I assume that it would be the centre of a passenger transport area for the purpose of my argument. If decisions taken so far by the Plymouth Corporation were taken by a P.T.A. comprising representatives also of local councils in surrounding areas, many of the plans which Plymouth Corporation has on the drawing board, and which are entirely commendable, might suffer serious deterioration. That is why I believe it right to spell out that it is essential for the authorities to take account of policies of constituent areas.
There is no conflict between the two sides of the House on the question of safety. The provision in the Clause is right and I am glad that the Amendment is exactly the same in that respect.
We cannot ignore the social criterion of this policy. It is right, in considering a form of public transport, to consider the economic as well as the social advantages. Perhaps we have always tended to emphasise the social advantages—and on this aspect hon. Members opposite and I have been mainly of one mind. But economic advantages must be considered also because in many areas, particularly development areas, the economy depends on the forms of transport available.
I am having an argument at the moment with British Railways about the rundown of a passenger service at a main line station in my constituency because I believe that it will damage the potential development of the area. I believe that people who might otherwise go to the area with light industry may not do so because of the rundown of the rail service. It is right, therefore, that the economic consequences of planning transport areas should be taken into account when the Minister is designating the areas.
This matter goes to the nub of the question of passenger transport authorities. If we are to have them, we are anxious that they should work. Having considered the Amendment carefully, and

having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, which did not conflict with the principles set out by the hon. Member for Tavistock, I believe that the Minister of State can only accept it. It does nothing to harm or weaken the Government's intentions. On the contrary, it would strengthen and spell out with greater clarity what is needed if the passenger transport authorities are to be a success. It would do so in a way which would make them far more acceptable to the local authorities. Indeed, if they are not acceptable to the local authorities, they will not work.
Good will is needed on both sides and the Amendment would go a long way to establishing it and making the passenger transport authorities a viable and worth while project.

Mr. John Lee: I think that on both sides we feel sympathy with the objectives of the Amendment. Many of us would share the view of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) that probably there is no real long-term solution to transport problems which does not take account of land use and town planning. Perhaps some of us on this side who voted against Amendment No. 43 last night, dealing with the question of waiting for the outcome of the Royal Commission deliberations, had some sympathy with the point of view put forward then.
My objection to the Amendment is rather narrow. The wording of the Bill and of the Amendment are not so different in substance but, under the Amendment, the passenger transport authorities would be bound by the decisions of local authorities, and one can easily envisage a situation in which local authorities—whose political composition, about which we on this side are a little sensitive at the moment, can change frequently—may be in conflict with their P.T.A.
The Amendment is quite clear, for it says:
… the Authority and the Executive shall ensure that decisions taken with a view to the establishment of such a system are compatible with …".
Does this really mean that they must be literally compatible, that the courts could possibly find themselves having to adjudicate?
Suppose a local authority does not like the decision of the passenger transport authority covering its area because it seems inconsistent with a town planning decision. Could it go to the courts and ask that the P.T.A. be restrained from carrying out its functions? It seems a rather bizarre suggestion, but, as far as I can see, the passenger transport authorities would undoubtedly have their discretion seriously restrained by the Amendment. I do not believe that anything like that would help these authorities in their functioning nor to create harmony between them and the local authorities.
On the remainder of the Amendment, there is little between the two sides of the House, but I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about the undue emphasis on economic criteria. Of course, we want operative costing, but, under the last Government, we saw the way in which economic criteria were applied too frequently to the question of the continuance or discontinuance of railway lines. We know that much the same sort of treatment would be reintroduced if another Conservative Minister of Transport were to be given his chance. I suspect that, in those circumstances, the railways would suffer severely from further application of economic instead of the social criteria which I think most hon. Members on this side of the House wish to have taken into consideration.
On the whole, I think that the spirit in which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) moved the Amendment was conciliatory. When the debate is finished, I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment, because we regard it as one of the more harmonious and constructive suggestions put forward by the other side. I ask him to consider whether he thinks it is practicable for a P.T.A. to be subjected to judicial scrutiny whereby its authority could actually be restrained, ppssibly by a court injunction, because this is the inevitable implication behind the mandatory character of the wording in the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) in his attitude to economic criteria. While not disagreeing that social criteria are important, nevertheless economic criteria

are of crucial importance. I feel that the Amendment may do much to avoid the dangers which the P.T.A. system, as envisaged in the Bill, may well have. This is a feeling strongly felt in the West Midlands where there are great anxieties about this system and where the local authorities of the Midlands—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that even greater anxieties are felt in the West Midlands about the great traffic congestion to which we are subject in Birmingham?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course that is important. But the feeling in the West Midlands, particularly now that there is a superior ability in the local authorities, is that they could work out their transport problems in relation to the other planning problems in the area through the West Midlands Planning Authority Conference. Through that body they believe that they could voluntarily achieve the necessary co-ordination of transport in the same way as they have been successful in dealing with other problems.
In the West Midlands anxiety has been focused on economic criteria by reason of the study that has been made of the experience of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Looking at the figures, the population involved is similar to that of the West Midlands conurbation. Therefore, consideration has been given to seeing how the extraordinarily bad history of that authority —after all, in a country normally used to a high standard of industrial efficiency —can be avoided here. For that reason, I support the Amendment. It is important to focus attention from the beginning on the economic criteria.
The recent authoritative article in The Times, which applies very much to the problems in the West Midlands, talking about the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, says:
The basic cause of the failure was the authority's power to levy the rates of the municipalities to cover deficits and the consequent lack of commercial discipline.
10.45 a.m.
The Amendment addresses itself to the question of establishing the importance of commercial discipline from the inception of these authorities. In the American example, the bus undertakings were


transferred without compensation and in a short time the managerial staff was doubled. In one of the cities in this area 10 per cent. of the total household rates goes to meet transport losses. These are not my imaginations, or those of the Tory Research Department about what might happen. This is what has happened in the United States. This article is written by a former lecturer on transport at the College of Business Administration of Boston University. He is not engaged in party political controversies here. He describes facts in America.
I will not weary the House with further details. My point is that it is important to stress the aspect of economic viability and economic criteria at the beginning. I draw particular attention to the concluding words of this writer, who is commenting upon an organisation which, in all probability, was the basis on which the Ministry, in devising this plan, based itself thinking it would find a respectable example from an efficient country, but which we know has not worked well and has already accumulated a deficit of £12½ million in three years.
The writer concludes:
It is a combination of conceit and prejudice that prevents men—particularly politicians —profiting from the mistakes of others. Let it be clearly stated that we who have lived with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority regard it not as a model to be imitated, but as a warning against rejection of basic commercial and financial disciplines.
The Amendment is designed to correct that danger.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) spoke at some length on the experience of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. It may save the time of the House if I inform the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Thomas Lenthall, upon whose bogus comparisons he based his case, was also in the Manchester area. If it would save the time of the House, I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with a complete answer to the propagandist statements that we heard from Mr. Lenthall.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to congestion on roads in the West Midlands. There is great congestion, too, on roads in Manchester conurbation.

Many of he most enlightened people in the Manchester area are intensely keen to see a solution to the transport problem before the reorganisation of local government. Clearly, for reasons only of party tactics, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in touch with the Conservative groups on local authorities for the purpose of delaying the solution offered by the Bill.
This is a delaying Amendment and there are a number of others like it. The Manchester conurbation urgently needs the reorganisation and modernisation of its passenger transport. The Town Clerk of Manchester wrote to me on 29th January with a number of constructive suggestions about the Bill, but particularly this part of it. He said:
I have no doubt that the recommendations of the Committees will be approved by the City Council at their meeting on 7th February, 1968, but as the Bill is now in Committee, I am sending this statement to you now.
He wrote on 8th February:
The City Council, at their meeting yesterday, did not approve the report of the General and Parliamentary Committee on the Bill, but asked the Committee to give further consideration to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: As there is only an hour before the Guillotine falls, may I ask why we are having these delaying tactics? There are no delaying provisions in this Amendment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am addressing myself to the need for a passenger transport authority in a conurbation, part of which I have the honour to represent. If the hon. Gentleman, who crosses swords with me journalistically from time to time, does not like to be reminded of his activities with local Conservative groups in this matter, that is a completely different question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must come to the Amendment, which is whether the Authority and the executive shall consult with local authorities on certain economic criteria.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This Amendment delays the possibility of reorganising passenger transport.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman point to one word in that Amendment which has any reference to delay?

Mr. Alfred Morris: Every word in the Amendment, the whole Amendment deals with it. The Opposition are like the lady who would not say no, but who did not say yes—they do not know whether they are opposed in principle to the P.T.A.s, or whether they are in favour of them. I could go point by point over what the Massachusetts Bay Transport Authority is reputed to have done, but to save the time I will not do so. I hope that the House will proceed as quickly as possible to pass the Bill, which will help my area very considerably.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: We have had two important statements this morning. The first was in the second leading article of The Times. As one would expect, this was not uncritical of the Transport Bill, and the ideas put forward in it. Nevertheless, it made plain that those responsible for The Times realise that misrepresentations of the Transport Bill have gone dangerously far and that some correction is required to them.
I come to the second important statement, no less important than that which appeared in The Times. I do not wish to say anything to detract from the importance of what was said by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). And I would certainly be prepared to withdraw anything which I have said, if it has misrepresented the views of the Opposition. But I had gathered both from the conduct of the Opposition in Committee, and from their campaigns in the country, that not only were they opposed to the machinery now under discussion, and to the duties and functions to be given to the executives, but that they were deeply opposed to the P.T.A. concept. Perhaps I had been misled by the fact that the Opposition on Second Reading put up the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) as one of their main speakers. I am sure that I would not misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman if he said that he was not wedded to the P.T.A. concept.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will apply himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: We are discussing the very important matter upon which I gave

an assurance, quoted by the hon. Member, about the remit to be given to the P.T.A.s and executives. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this goes to the heart of the matter, to the aims, objects and functions of the P.T.A.s and the P.T.E.s. It is fair to mention this, because the hon. Member for Tavistock said in this debate in crystal-clear terms, that the Opposition are not opposed to the P.T.A. concept.
Since I agree with him on this, I am most anxious that the P.T.A. concept should not be made into a kind of political football game, which might detract from progress in solving the traffic and transport problems of the great cities. It is very important to be clear on that statement from the Opposition. We are now arguing about the details of the remit. I would remind the House of what we said about the origin of the P.T.A. concept and about what is now contained in this part of the Bill, in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the White Paper on Public Transport and Traffic.
We said there that:
Local authorities are responsible for the planning of their areas and the development of their local road networks, and they cannot do these jobs effectively unless they also have a broad responsibility for public transport.
That was our starting point.
We went on to say that the transport matters:
… for which local authorities are to be responsible—the improvement of the local road network, investment in public transport, traffic management measures, the balance between public and private transport—must be focused in an integrated transport plan, which in its turn is related to the general planning for each area.
It is important that there is a consensus on that, because we then came to the next stage of arguing about the machinery of implementation. We went on to say, in paragraph 14:
… the planning and operation of public transport can only be done intelligently over areas which make sense in transport terms. This means that planning must cover not only a large city or town, but also the area around it from which large numbers of people travel to the centre for work, shopping or pleasure.
It went on to explain that we were in the difficulty of trying to form consortia of local authorities, or an authority with a number of local authorities represented upon it, because there were not, in the country, sufficiently large categories of


local government covering wide enough areas to whom one could naturally give this power and function of planning transport policy. If we already had such authorities, through the agreed part of the Royal Commission, we would be in a much better position. The whole of the argument about these authorities arises because they are instruments devised to cover an area wider than that now covered by any local authority. They will receive grants from the State in respect of improvement of bus fleets and so on, and we have to devise a constitution for them.
I gave an assurance in Committee, quoted by the hon. Member for Tavistock. I have thought long and deep about this, and am very much attracted to the Amendment that he has moved. There is not much between us on these matters. Obviously, we agree about the encouragement of safety, about the need for the harmonisation of traffic, parking, and public transport policies, for which we are setting up the P.T.A.s and the P.T.E.s. In Clause 18(l)(j) we place upon the P.T.A. a statutory duty to propose machinery for securing coordination between the policies which it produces, "and the preparation and execution by the councils of constituent areas of any plans and policies of those councils with respect to traffic regulation and parking."
Therefore, it is quite clear all the way along the line that we want to achieve that compatibility. We also want the P.T.A.s and P.T.E.s to consider the economic criteria and to do proper costing. They have to accept financial responsibility, and we are providing in the Bill for certain new criteria because they are akin to local authorities. They will have to be able to do proper costings, from which they will have to work out the economic criteria and to operate across the board in exercising their financial responsibilities.
There is, therefore, not a great deal of difference between us except on the following point, which is the obstacle to acceptance of this Amendment. It has been pointed out to me in all our discussions that we are setting up P.T.A.s on which a number of different local authorities are to be represented who, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

were pointing out last night, will decide under other hats on their traffic and highway policies, and that these may not necessarily be campatible with each other, at any rate in the early stages in relation to traffic and parking controls, and so on. But if we were to accept the wording proposed in this Amendment it would confront a P.T.A. with an impossible task. If there were such incompatibility, as there might be and as there is today in and around the conurbations, in the policies of the councils of constituent areas, how could the P.T.A. make its public transport policy compatible with the policies of those councils?
It presupposes that we have already achieved harmonisation of traffic and parking policies of all the councils of the constituent areas. I wish we could say that we had done so, but that is not the situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Lee) quite rightly pointed out, if we were to accept this Amendment, a P.T.A. might be held to be acting ultra vires if, in an area where it made its policy compatible with that of seven other local authorities, that policy was incompatible with that of another constituent local authority, which was pursuing a different policy. Clearly that would be an absurd situation.
It is solely for that reason that I find myself unable to accept this Amendment. But I give the assurance that we are perfectly prepared to think further about this. We appreciate the point that has been made on the vagueness of the wording about having due regard to economy and safety of operation, and so on. We accept the need for the aim of achieving coherence and harmony between policies on public transport and those on traffic and parking. We will think further on this and if there are ways and means whereby we can make the objectives set out in the Bill and the remit to P.T.A.s more effective, then we are perfectly prepared in further stages of the Bill to consider a further Amendment.

Mr. Peter Walker: In view of the fact that there are 15 debates yet to come, and the Guillotine falls in 40 minutes, I would appeal to the House to pass on to other debates. I believe that the Minister of State, in his last few remarks, exposed the weakness of his whole concept of P.T.A.s. It is all very well for


him to mention The Times leader, which pointed out that the two great weaknesses it sees in the Bill are the P.T.A.s as envisaged by this Government and quantity licensing. The objection of The Times to P.T.A.s is similar our ours. The objective of the Government is to operate and to own buses whereas the object of our concept is properly to co-ordinate planning in these matters.
The Minister said it may well be found that local authorities do not agree on planning and parking policies, that this would be one of the difficulties and that, therefore, the Government cannot accept the wording proposed. He is really saying that that is a difficulty which the Government are not going to face in any way, because as yet P.T.A.s have no powers in these spheres, and rightly so. That is why we were wise to suggest

waiting until properly elected local government councils have all these powers.

Under present circumstances, a Birmingham P.T.A. may include Worcester and there may be for the County of Worcester one representative on the P.T.A.; and as far as policies are concerned, he will be outvoted by those more directly connected with Birmingham and by the Ministry of Transport's own representatives, so that it cannot be said that under this concept the policies in Worcester are to be co-ordinated with the work of the P.T.A. This Amendment would provide more sensible criteria for P.T.A.s and that is why I ask my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 274.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[11.8 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Holland, Philip


Astor, John
Dance, James
Hordern, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hornby, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hunt, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Doughty, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goo &amp; Fhm)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bessell, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Biffen, John
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Birch Rt Hn Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Kitson, Timothy



Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Lambton, Viscount


Boardman Ton, (Leicester. S.W.)
Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, col. C.G.


Body, Richard
Fletcher-Cook, Charles
Lane, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fortescue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Foster, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Brewis, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Giles, Read-Adm. Morgan
Lubbock, Eric


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glyn, Sir Richard
MacArthur, Ian


Bruce-cardyne, J.
Goodhart, Philip
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ro
ss&amp;Crom'ty)


Bryan, Paul
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Cresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grieve, Percy
Maemillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin


Campbell, Gordon
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maginnis, John E.


Carlisle, Mark
Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Carr, nt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Channon, H. P. G.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Clark, Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clegg, Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Hawkins, Paul

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Costain, A. P.
Hay, John
Monro, Hector


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus



Crouch, David
Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper


Crowder, F. P.
Higgirts, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hill, J. E. B.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)




Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Murton, Oscar
Royle, Anthony
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Vickers, Dame Joan


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Onsow, Cranley
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharpies, Richard
Webster, David


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Frederick
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Pardoe, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Peel, John
Speed, Keith
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Peyton, John
Stainton, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pink, R. Bonner
Stodart, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Pounder, Rafton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Worsley, Marcus


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter
Wright, Esmond


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wylie, N. R.


Pym, Francis
Taylor,EdwardM.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Younger, Hn. George


Quenneli, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Teeling, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple, John M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Ridsdale, Julian
Tilney, John





NOES


Albu, Austen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Henig, Stanley


Alldritt, Walter
Delargy, Hugh
Hobden, Denis (Brighton, K'town)


Allen, Scholefield
Dell, Edmund
Hooley, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Archer, Peter
Dewar, Donald
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Armstrong, Ernest
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dickens, James
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dobson, Ray
Howie, W.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Doig, Peter
Huckfield, Leslie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnes, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Baxter, William
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bence, Cyril
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hunter, Adam


Benn,'Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hynd, John


Bennett, James (G'eow Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Binns, John
Ennals, David
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Binhnp, E. S.
Ensor, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jager, George (Goole)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Judd, Frank


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Kelley, Richard


Brooks, Edwin
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kenyon, Clifford


Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Gardner, Tony
Lawson, George


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Ledger, Ron


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Buchanan,Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, John (Reading)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Gregory, Arnold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Carmichael, Neil
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lipton, Marcus


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Loughlin, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Luard, Evan


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William
McCann, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harper, Joseph
MacColl, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Macdonald, A. H.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Dalyelf, Tam
Haseldine, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hattersley, Roy
Mackie, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hazell, Bert
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)







McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


McNamara, J. Kevin
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Stonehouse, John


Macpherson, Malcolm
Pavitt, Laurence
Strains, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Summenkill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Swain, Thomas


Mailalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Pentland, Norman
Swingler, Stephen


Manuel, Archie
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Symonds, J. B.


Mapp, Charles
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Taverne, Dick


Marks, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Marquand, David
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, William (Rugby)
Thornton, Ernest


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Urwin, T. W.


Mendelson, J. J.
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mikardo, Ian
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Reynolds, G. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wallace, George


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Molloy, William
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Moonman, Eric
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Welibeloved, James


Morgan, Elyston (Cardiganshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitaker, Ben


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Roland
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Murray, Albert
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Neal, Harold
Rose, Paul
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Newens, Stan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Oakes, Gordon
Ryan, John
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert
Winnick, David


Oram, Albert E.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Orme, Stanley
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


Oswald, Thomas
Sitkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, St'tn)
Skeffington, Arthur
Yates, Victor


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Slater, Joseph



Paget, R. T.
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Snow, Julian
Mr. J. D. Concannon and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Park, Trevor
Spriggs, Leslie

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 14, line 26, at end insert—
(4A) Each of the councils of constituent areas and each of the following bodies namely, the Authority, the Executive and any subsidiary of the Executive, shall have power to enter into and carry out agreements with one another for the giving of assistance by that council to that body or, as the case may be, by that body to that council by way of making available to the assisted party any services or facilities provided by, or any property of, the assisting party.
It might well be called a mutual assistance Amendment. It is clear, and I think it explains itself. The power might be used, for example, where an authority or executive wishes to garage and service a council's vehicles. I leave it to the House to decide whether it wants any more information.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

GENERAL POWERS OF EXECUTIVE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The next Amendment is Amendment 50, with which we may discuss the

following Amendments: No. 61, in page 14, line 38, at end insert:
'but in no case shall vicinity be regarded as extending for more than ten miles outside that area'.
Government Amendment No. 52, Amendment No. 53, in page 15, line 17, at end insert:
'as defined in paragraph (ii) of this subsection'.
Government Amendment No. 101, and Amendment No. 102, in page 33, line 28, leave out 'outside but in the vicinity' and insert 'within ten miles'.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 35, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert—
(ii) to carry passengers by any other form of land transport or by any form of water transport (including in either case hover vehicles) between places in that area or between such places and any place outside that area but within the permitted distance, that is to say, the following distance from the nearest point on the boundary of that area, namely—

(a) in the case of land transport, such distance not exceeding thirty miles as may be specified in the order with respect to that area under section 9(1) of this Act or, if no distance is so specified, the distance of thirty miles;
(b) in the case of water transport, such distance as may be specified as aforesaid;




The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) raised in Committee the question of the definition of the words "the vicinity". He said that he was not thirled—to use a good Scots word—to the idea of 20 miles, but felt that there should be something more specific than the wording in the Bill. Since then we have considered this, as the Minister of State promised.
It will be noticed from the Amendment that we make a distinction between a land transport limit of 30 miles, which we think would meet all foreseeable cases, certainly in the first four P.T.A.s—greater Manchester, West Midlands, Merseyside and Tyneside—and water transport, where we have chosen a different criterion for obvious reasons. I would strongly suggest that the Amendment should be incorporated.
The House will note that Amendment No. 101 has the effect of requiring the executive to review all the railway passenger services serving the area up to the prescribed distance. In what detail they review a service will be a matter for local decision by the executive.
Not only on this Amendment, but on the preceding Amendment, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) keeps obscuring the issue. There are many local decisions to be taken here. This is another example of the kind of thing which we expect P.T.A.s

and executives to observe. It is necessary to have it in the Statute, otherwise they cannot exercise discretion. They might want to go into a good deal of detail about a doubtful service. On the other hand, they might be able to decide by a glance that a local service on the periphery of the 30-mile radius which came nowhere near the Area itself would be of no interest to them.

I will not deploy any arguments on the other Amendments being taken as hon. Gentlemen may wish to support them.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: This matter was discussed in Committee, and it is obvious to me, having listened to what the Minister of State has said, that the gulf between us is extremely wide. We are rapidly drawing to a conclusion of the discussion on the Clause, and, if we discuss a matter on which there is such a wide gap, there will be no prospect of getting agreement later where there is a narrower gap which we may be able to close.
To define a 30-mile limit outside the passenger transport area is preposterous, and I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes, 228.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[11.22 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dobson, Ray


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Doig, Peter


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.


Allen, Scholefield
Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Chapman, Donald
Ennals, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coe, Denis
Ensor, David


Barnes, Michael
Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Barnett, Joel
Conlan, Bernard
Fernyhough, E.


Baxter, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bence, Cyril
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Foley, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Binns, John
Culler, Mrs. Alice
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Blackburn, F.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Forrester, John



Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fowler, Gerry


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh
Gardner, Tony


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dell, Edmund
Garrett, W. E.


Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Brooks, Edwin
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dickens, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony




Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacDermot, Niall
Reynolds, G. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackie, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Hannan, William
McNamara, J. Kevin
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Harper, Joseph
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hattersley, Roy
Manuel, Archie
Ryan, John



Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon Robert


Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Howie, W.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moonman, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Symonds, J. B.


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taverne, Dick


Hynd, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Murray, Albert
Tinn, James


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Neal, Harold
Urwin, T. W.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Newens, Stan
Varley, Eric G.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Norwood, Christopher
Wainwright, Edw'n (Dearne Valley)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oram, Albert E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orme, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
whitaker, Ben


Judd, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lawson, George
Park, Trevor

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ledger, Ron
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, John (Reading)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Winnick, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lever, Harold (cheetham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lew's, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Yates, Victor


Lipton, Marcus
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)



Loughlin, Charles
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. John McCann and Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry



McBride, Neil
Rankin, John





NOES


Alison, Michael (Bariston Ash)
Body, Richard
Clark, Henry


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Corfield, F. V.


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Crowder, F. P.


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Currie, C. B. H.


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Paul
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dance, James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Davidson, James(Abertleenshire,W.)


Berry, Hn. Antnony
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bessell, Peter
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Biffen, John
Campbell, Gordon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, Sir Robert
Doughty, Charles


Blaker, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Drayson, G. B.




du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Emery, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Ceoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fortescue, Tim
Lubbock, Eric
Scott, Nicholas


Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Sharpies, Richard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp; Crom'ty)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Silvester, Frederick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Sinclair, Sir George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.
Stainton, Keith


Grant, Anthony
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Stodart, Anthony


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Teeling, Sir William


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector
Temple, John M.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harris, Frederic (Croycton, N.W.)
More, Jasper
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Van straubenzee, W. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L,
Neave, Airey
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hill, J. E. B.
Nlcholls, Sir Harmar.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sr Derek


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Wall, Patrick


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L, P. S.
Webster, David



Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pardoe, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. p.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pounder, Rafton
Worsiey, Marcus


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wright, Esmond


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Francis
Younger, Hn. George


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kitson, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 15, line 27, leave out paragraph (ix) and insert:
(ix) where an undertaking has been—

(a)transferred to the Executive under subsection (1) of section 17 of this Act; or

 (b)wholly or partly resumed by the Executive under subsection (2)(a) of the said section 17; or
 (c)acquired by the Executive otherwise than under the said section 17, 

to carry on (but, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c) of this paragraph, only with the approval of the Authority) any activities which the Executive would not otherwise have power to carry on but which were carried on by that undertaking immediately before the date of that transfer, the date of the disposal which gave rise to that resumption, or the date of that acquisition, as the case may be;

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 55, in page 15, line 27, after ' transferred', insert ' from a local authority'.

Mr. Swingler: Members of the Standing Committee will recall the rather long argument that we had about whether the Executive should be allowed to carry on certain activities which were not relevant to its main activities and purposes, but were part of an undertaking transferred to the Executive under the provisions of the Bill. A great deal of the argument centred on the meaning of the word "transferred" and on which undertakings were covered by the Clause. The Amendment is intended to remove any


doubt about the meaning of the Clause. It makes clear the distinction between transferred undertakings and acquired undertakings. It was argued in Committee that acquired undertakings could be included in the word "transferred".
The aim of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in Committee, was to secure that, where a Passenger Transport Executive acquired an undertaking, it should not have power to carry on the activity in which the undertaking was engaged if it was not one which the Executive was empowered to carry on, except for the purpose of selling or winding up that part of the undertaking carrying on the supplementary activity.
Where a municipally-owned undertaking is transferred to a P.T.E., it may include certain activities not considered essential to the provision of transport and matters of that kind. Nevertheless, these activities would be carried on by the P.T.E. Making the distinction between transferred and acquired undertakings, the Amendment provides that a Passenger Transport Executive must obtain the approval of the Authority for continuing to carry on any supplementary activity already carried on by an undertaking which it has acquired, either voluntarily or in any other way.
I have no doubt that this will incur a certain amount of criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but what we are doing here is putting the P.T.E.s on all fours with other transport undertakings, such as the National Bus Company, the National Freight Corporation and the Scottish Transport Group, except that they have to have the approval of the Minister of Transport, whereas it is obviously better that a Passenger Transport Executive should have the approval of the Authority, mainly composed of local government representatives, for carrying on these supplementary activities.
The second point is that in Clause 16 there are safeguards against unfair competition. Thirdly, an undertaking taken over must comprise assets required for the Executive's main business, so it must be mainly a transport business. In other words, the other activity, whatever it may be, must be a minor part of the undertaking. The fourth point is that the Executive is empowered only to carry on the activity. It is not empowered to extend it. In other words, it acquires an

undertaking mainly composed for transport purposes. If that undertaking happens to have developed some other supplementary activities, the Executive may carry on those supplementary activities with the approval of the P.T.A. That does not mean that it is entitled to try to build up trading empires.
The safeguard is quite clear. It is provided in the Statute that the approval of the Authority is necessary in all cases of acquired undertakings. Notwithstanding the criticism expressed in Committee, I hope that the House will approve of this sensible, clarifying provision.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Now I have heard everything. That is the most remarkable volte face that any Minister has ever been expected to address to this House. The hon. Gentleman's argument on the last point is, "Do not worry. A few examples of private enterprise fall into the hands of the municipal authorities by mistake. This is an incidental to the major acquisition, because those small acquisitions will not be permitted to be extended, year in year out." He is saying that these small trading activities will be maintained at precisely the same level of commercial size as when they were taken over.
Of all the commercial nonsense I have ever heard from a Minister, this is the worst. The idea that we can employ men and assets in a static position for ever is preposterous, and it is ludicrous for the Minister to try to sell us that idea. It is even more preposterous that he should try to sell us this Amendment.
This Amendment came into being as a result of an accidental revelation, brought to the attention of the Committee by me, because the purpose of the original drafting was to give municipal authorities, through the aegis of the passenger transport authorities, the power, if they took over an incidental operation by transfer from the local authorities, to conduct that operation. I pointed out that under another provision of the Bill, passenger transport authorities could acquire outside companies and that the assets of those companies would be transferred.
I said that this meant that the P.T.A.s would be able to conduct a limitless range of activities, quite dissociated from their main business as transport operators. This point took us hours to get across. It took hours for the Minister even to


understand the words we were using. So that hon. Members should not think I am exaggerating, I will quote from the Standing Committee Report when I revealed this possibility and the Minister's reply. He said:
I am sure that the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is magnificent in making the flesh creep in Tavistock, but in this Committee we have to pay some attention to accuracy and in particular to what is in the Bill.
Later, he repeated and clarified the point. He said:
 It is to do … with things which were in municipal enterprises and which have been started by December of last year. It is limited to that extent. That is the explanation which I give to the Standing Committee on this part of the Clause. It does not raise any question of the Executive being given sweeping powers to go widely into all sorts of activities."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 14th February, 1968; c. 667–70.]
That was what the Minister said, and was Government policy when we discussed this in Committee. Now this Amendment is the precise reverse of what the Minister was saying Government policy was. It spells out that not only are there to be transfers of assets from local authorities, but that, where assets are transferred, as a result of acquisition, the local authorities are permitted to go on conducting those operations regardless. There is no assurance of a transport necessity. The Minister of State said that there were safeguards, and that there would be nothing to worry about because the authorities would not be able to acquire those assets in the first place unless they were assets wholly for the purpose of their business.
11.45 a.m.
The wording of the legislation is not quite as was presented. It says that passenger transport authorities can acquire "by agreement" any undertaking, or part of an undertaking if the assets comprised in the undertaking or part are "wholly or mainly" assets which the executive requires for the purposes of their business. First, it is the executive which decides if the assets are required, and, second, there is cause for concern about the use of the words "wholly or mainly". What will happen is that one will buy bus companies, a majority of whose assets are totally concerned with transport undertakings, but a small part of their assets will, in some way, be de-

volved in businesses in no way associated with transport. The Minister of State said clearly in Committee that they would not be empowered to do that, but this Amendment gives them this power. He can dress it up in any way he chooses, but it is a major departure from the policy of the Government as stated in Committee.
This change confirms the worst suspicions of the motives behind this legislation. I can understand hon. Members opposite saying that they want this power to be given to the P.T.A.s—this is a doctrinal difference between the two sides. I accept their sincere right to have those views. What I do question is the situation where legislation is so drafted that those who are responsible for steering it through the House do not understand what it is about, are prepared, throughout the night in Committee to state clearly that it means one thing, using up valuable time, as a result of which 50 Clauses were never discussed, and then come to the House and change their mind and try to tell us that it is a matter of no consequence.
It is a monstrous decision by the Government and I am delighted by one thing only—that it is the Minister who has to come to the House and make quite clear that this change has taken place. I daresay that the Government will use their majority to steamroller this through, but I hope that it lies heavy on their consciences for having treated the House in this monstrous way.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In all the sittings of the Committee, and of the House as a whole on the Bill, I have heard only one speech containing more preposterous nonsense than that which we have just heard, and that was the speech made by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in Committee. This was the kind of Clause under which, we were told, P.T.A.s would operate oil refineries market gardens—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I prefer to make my own speech.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order. I have no wish to prevent the hon. Member from attacking me, but when he is deliberately misquoting me I would ask him to be good enough to


quote the passages where I am supposed to have said these things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Huckfield: I will just imagine, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman's argument point had some substance, and I would tell him that he can look anywhere in the proceedings of Standing Committee F and he will find these repeated references.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Where?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman spoke about setting up oil refineries and I was glad of this, since he said that I would get one in my constituency. I am surprised to find that when hon. Gentlemen in Committee have been arguing in favour of more safeguards, they should argue against this Amendment, which provides just that. A more continuous state of inconsistency I have yet to see.
We can see why the hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot support that Amendment. They are arguing along the same old lines, about putting something restrictive on the authorities. They want to be quite sure that, in the wide range of operations included under the heading of public passenger transport, private enterprise still has the cream. As long as that is the case they can turn round and say, "We told you so, passenger transport authorities will make a loss."
I support this Amendment, and would sincerely urge the hon. Member for Tavistock to read what he has said in Committee and ask him not to talk such preposterous nonsense.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall be very brief, first, because I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to make progress, and second, because, as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Race Relations Bill, I am supposed to be upstairs. I rise because I have a matter that concerns my constituency and because I am provoked by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend.
In the event of one of the executives taking over an existing transport business that happens on the side to be running an amusement park with dodgems, does

the Minister's statement that they may not extend their activities mean that if dodgems go out of fashion, they may not go in for motor boats? That is the kind of question he must answer if he says that authorities, once taken over, will not be able to extend their activities—[An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Bill."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Read the Bill". I have read it. I am also engaged in the Standing Committee which is considering the Race Relations Bill, and one of the difficulties for which the Government are responsible is that hon. Members are required to come here without having been able to do all the work they would wish to do on behalf of their constituents.
It is the Minister's duty to answer the question, and mine to ask it. When he says that executives will not be allowed to extend their activities, will they be asked to make the decision not to seek a profit, not to run those activities in a commercial fashion, because of the undertaking he has given the House? My view is clear. They should hive off all these incidental activities at once, and should not take them over. I do not wish to see public money squandered in the way the Minister described this morning.

Mr. Swingler: If they take over a transport undertaking that is carrying on such an activity with the approval of the passenger transport executive, composed as it is mainly of local authority representatives, they may continue to carry on the supplementary activity. Under other parts of the Bill the executives have powers of acquisition and disposal of property in particular respects, but they are not entitled to go into a business extraneous to the main purposes of their business as a transport undertaking.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The Minister says that they cannot go into a business which is extraneous, but who is to make this judgment? Under paragraph (x) the executive has power to provide for the persons using the services and facilities provided by it
… such other amenities or facilities as it may appear to the Executive requisite or expedient to provide;
To take the example of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), it might seem that dodgems are a very good attraction for people using its transport services because its,


buses are always late. It might say, "It is expedient for us to have dodgems to amuse passengers while they are waiting for the buses to arrive." Such an argument can justify the provision of almost anything in relation to the main services—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh". What is the matter with this argument? If he will read—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am required to put the outstanding Govern-

ment Amendments by the time-table Motion.

The Proceedings on consideration of the Bill having continued for four and a half hours after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 229.

Division No. 180.]
AYES
[11.54 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Dolg, Peter
Hunter, Adam


Alldritt, Walter
Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Archer, Peter
Eadle, Alex
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ellis, John
Jeger, George (Coole)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
English, Michael
Jeger,Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Barnes, Michael
Ensor, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bence, Cyril
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Bidweli, Sydney
Foley, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Binns, John
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, George


Blackburn, F.
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Ledger Ron


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fowler, Gerry
Lee, Rt. Hn. Fredrick (Newton)


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee, John (Reading)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Boyden, James
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Harlod (Cheetham)


Barddock, Mrs. E. M.
Gardner, Tony
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bradely, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bray, Dr. Jermey
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Brooks, Edwin
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lomas, Kemmeth


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Loughlin, charles


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gregory, Arnold
Laurd. Evan


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
 Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyon, Alexander W.(York)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lanelly)
McBridge, Neil


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCann, John


Cant, R. B.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
MacColl, James


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacDermot, Niall


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Chapman, Donald
Hamling, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Coe, Denis
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Corbet Mrs Freda
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Macleman, Robert


Craddock, George (Bradford S.)
Haseldine, Norman
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hazell, Bert
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dalyell Tarn
Henig, Stanley
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hooley, Frank
Manuel, Archie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marquand, David


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Delargy Hugh
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dell, Edmund
Howie, W.
Mendelson, J. J.


Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dickens, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mime, Edward (Blyth)


Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)




Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Taverne, Dick


Moonman, Eric
Reynolds, G. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Moyle, Roland
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Murray, Alhert
Richard, Ivor
Thornton, Ernest


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Newerts, Stan
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Urwin, T. W.


Norwood, Christopher
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Oakes, Gordon
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ogden, Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
 Walden, Brian (All Saints)


O'Malley, Brian
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oram, Albert E.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wallace, George


Orme, Stanley
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Oswald, Thomas
Rose, Paul
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Weitzman, David


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ryan, John
Wellbeloved, James


Paget, R. T
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Sheldon, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Park, Trevor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitlock, William


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pearson, Arlhur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Pentland, Norman
Snow, Julian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick, David


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Stonehouse, John
Woof, Robert


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Price, William (Rugby)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Yates, Victor


Probert, Arthur
Swain, Thomas



Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rankin, John
Symonds, J. B.
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. J. D. Concannon.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul


Allaison, James (Hemet Hempstead)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hay, John



Astor, John
Currle, G. B. H.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Dalfceltti, Earl of
Heseltine, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Dance, James
Higgins, Terence L.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hill, J. E. B.


Baiter, W. H. K. (Banff)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Holland, Philip


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hooson, Emlyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hordern, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Homby, Richard


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Doughty, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Aleo
Hunt, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bessell, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Biggs-Davtson, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Emery, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Blaker, Peter
Errington, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kimball, Marcus


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fortescue, Tim
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Braine, Bernard
Foster, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Brewis, John
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'ford &amp; Stone)
Lambton, Viscount


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Gower, Raymond
Lubbock, Eric


Bullus, Sir Eric
Grant, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Grant-Ferris, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Gresham cooke, R.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Carlisle, Mark
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy



Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunde)
Madeod, Rt. Hn. lain


Channon, H. P. G.
Grimond, Rt. Hn, J,
McMaster, Stanley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Clark, Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maddan, Martin


Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Magiimis, John E.


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Neil


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maude, Angus


Craddock, sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.




Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Miscampbell, Norman
Rencon, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tilney, John


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Monro, Hector

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. B.


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


More, Jasper
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Anthony
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wail, Patrick


Murton, Oscar
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Walters, Dennis


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Webster, David


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Onslow, Cranley
Sinclair, Sir George
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Speed, Keith
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pardoe, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clithero)
Stodart, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wright, Esmond


Peyton, John
Tapsell, Peter
Wylie, N. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Younger, Hn. George


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)



Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Teeling, Sir William
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.



Pym, Francis
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it suits the convenience of the House, I propose to put the outstanding Government Amendments up to but excluding No. 86 in one Question. I understand that it may be the wish of the House to divide on No. 86.

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 18, line 1, at beginning insert:
' subject, in the case of a disposal of land, to the approval of the Authority.'—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 11

FINANCIAL DUTY OF EXECUTIVE

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 20, line 32, after 'may' insert:
' after consultation with the Authority '.

No. 67, in line 33, leave out 'for the area'.

No. 68, in line 40, at end insert:
(5) If any of the councils of constituent areas so request the Executive in writing, the Executive shall send to that council a copy of any statement submitted by the Executive to the Minister under subsection (4) of this section. —[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 12

BORROWING POWERS OF EXECUTVE

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 21, line 44, at end insert:

(a) the council shall ensure so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so that having regard to all the circumstances existing at the time when the loan to the Executive is made the rate of interest agreed with the Executive is such that no loss is incurrd by the council in respect of that loan to the Executive; 
 (b)

No. 73, in page 22, line 2, at end insert:
(5) All moneys borrowed by the Executive shall be charged indifferently on all their revenues, and all securities created by the Executive shall rank equally without any priority; but nothing in this subsection shall—

 (a)apply to any money borrowed by way of temporary loan without security; or
 (b)affect any right to priority conferred by a security for any liability assumed by or transferred to the Executive in pursuance of this Act.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 14

ACCOUNTS OF EXECUTIVE

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 24, line 13, after ' any ', insert ' other body, being a '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 15

FURTHER FUNCTIONS OF AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 25,line 25, leave out from 'and' to end of line 29 and insert:
'the Executive shall comply with that direction; but on giving any such direction the Authority shall, unless the Executive agree to the contrary in writing, give the Executive a written undertaking to issue a precept under section 13 of this Act to meet any cost incurred by the Executive in consequence of the direction.'

No. 79, in page 26, line 12, at end insert:
(7) Any approval or direction given by the Authority in pursuance of this Part of this Act shall be given in writing.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 16

PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT BY AUTHORITY AND EXECUTIVE AND PREVENTION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT OF SUBSIDIARY ACTIVITIES

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 26,line 13, leave out' and the Executive '.

No. 81, in page 26, line 16, leave out 'prepare jointly, and cause' and insert:
'cause to be prepared jointly by the Authority and the Executive, and'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 17

TRANSFER TO EXECUTIVE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 27, line 36, leave out '8th December 1967' and insert:
'the identifying date (that is to say, 8th December 1967 or a date five years before the date of the making of the order, whichever is the later)'.—[Mr. Swingler..]

Amendment proposed: No. 86, in page 27, line 44, after ' being ', insert:
'property, rights and liabilities which are on the date so appointed, or have at any time since the identifying date been,'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 231.

Division No. 181.]
AYES
[12.5 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fowler, Gerry


Alldritt, Walter
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allen, Scholefield
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Freeson, Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Galpern, Sir Myer


Archer, Peter
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Tony


Armstrong, Ernest
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Garrett, W. E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ginsburg, David



Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grav' Dr' HuSh (Yarmouth)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gregory, Arnold


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Baxter, William
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bence, Cyril
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bennett, Jamos (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Binns, John
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Blackburn, F.
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, William


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunn, James A.
Harrison, Walter(Wakefield)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Boyden, James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Haseldine, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Heifer, Eric S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
English, Michael
Henig, Stanley


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ennals, David
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ensor, David
Hooley, Frank


Brown,R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, E.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Butler, Mrs. joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howie, W.


Carmichael, Neil
Foley, Maurice
Huckfied, Leslie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cletfwyn (Anglesey)


Chapman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Coe, Denis
Ford, Ben
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)




Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marks, Kenneth
Rogers, Ceorge (Kensington, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Marquand, David
Rose, Paul


Hynd, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ryan, John


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mayhew, Christopher
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Mendelson, J. J.
Sheldon, Robert


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cra8,S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molloy, William
Small, William


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Moonman, Eric
Snow, Julian


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Murray, Albert
Stonehomse, John


Judd, Frank
Neal, Harold
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kelley, Richard
Newens, Stan
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kenyon, Clifford
Norwood, Christopher
Swain, Thomas


Lawson, George
Oakes, Gordon
Swingler, Stephen


Leadbitter, Ted
Ogden, Eric
Symonds, J. B.


Ledger, Ron
O'Malley, Brian
Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oram, Albert E.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Ceorge


Lee, John (Reading)
Orme, Stanley
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lestor, Miis Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Paget, R. T.
Varley, Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Luard, Evan
Pavitt, Laurence
Wallace, George


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Weitzman, David


McCann, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wellbeloved, James


MacColl, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
 Whitaker, Ben


MacDermot, Niall
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price. William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackie, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mackintosh, John P.
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Mer'yn
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


McNamara, J. Kevin
Richard, Ivor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Yates, Victor


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Manuel, Archie
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mapp, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. J. D. Concannon.



Rodgers, William (Stockton)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of


Astor, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James


Atkins,Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Awdry' Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baker,Kenneth (Acton)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Baker W H K (Banff)
Bryan, Paul

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Barber Rt. Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Batsford Brian
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Sir Eric
Doughty, Charles


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F.A.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Camphell, Gorden
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
carlisle, Mark
Du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Carr Rt. Hn. Robert
Eden, sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (carshalton)


Bessell, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle.upon.Tyne,N.)


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Harry
Errington, Sir Eric


Birth, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clegg, Walter
Eyre, Reginald


Black, Sir Cyril
Cooke, Robert
Farr, John


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Fisher, Nigel


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Body, Richard
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fortescue, Tim


Bowom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Foster, Sir John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; stone)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.







Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Horneey)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Longden, Gilbert
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ranald


Glyn, Sir Richard
McAdden, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur, Ian
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Cower, Raymond
Mackenzie,Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crgnt-Ferris, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Sharpies, Richard


Gresham Coike, R.
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grieve, Percy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Silvester, Frederick


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, Anthony


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hay, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper
Teeling, Sir William


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hill, J. E. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Holland, Phillp
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hooson, Emlyn
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Mardstone)


Jennings, J. c. (Burton)
Pardoe, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peel, John
Will's, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Kirk, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Lambton, Viscount
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Younger, Hn. George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr Timothy Kitson and Bernard Weatherill.



Rodger's, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House, I will put the outstanding Amendments to Part II en bloc.

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 28, line 14, at end insert:
'such powers and duties as may be determined by or under the order, being';

No. 88, in line 20, leave out ' any ' and insert:
'all such persons as may be determined by or under the order, being';

No. 89, in line 25, leave out ' 8th December 19(57' and insert:
'the identifying date aforesaid';

No. 512, in line 35, at end insert:
(aa) for the assumption by any council such as is mentioned in subsection (l)(a)(i) of this section and by the Executive of such liabilities to one another as may be determined by or under the order to be appropriate having re-

gard to the financial arrangements of that council before the severance of the undertaking so mentioned from the other activities of that council;

No. 90, in page 29, line 14, leave out '8th December 1967' and insert:
'the identifying date referred to in the said subsection (l)(a)';

No. 91, in line 22, leave out 'and' and insert ' (c)';

No. 92, in line 24, leave out ' any such resumption' and insert ' the order '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 18

PLANNING OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES IN DESIGNATED AREAS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 30, line 32, after 'and', insert 'the Authority shall';

No. 95, in page 31, line 38, at end insert:
'and to each of the councils of constituent areas';

No. 96, in line 42, leave out 'publish' and insert:
'the Authority shall cause to be published';

No. 97, in page 32, line 7, at end insert:
'and to each of the councils of constituent areas.

(3) On causing the statement under subsection (1) of the plan under subsection (2) of this section to be published, the Authority shall also cause to be published in the London Gazette or, in the case of an Authority in Scotland, in the Edinburgh Gazette, and, in either case, in one or more newspapers circulating in their area, notice of the publication of the statement or plan; and that notice shall include particulars of a place at which and the days on which that statement or plan will be available at all reasonable hours for inspection by any member of the public and of the manner in which further copies of that statement or plan can be purchased or otherwise obtained '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 19

TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF BUS SERVICES TO EXECUTIVE

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 33, line 5, leave out subsection (5).— [Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 20

SPECIAL DUTY OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVES WITH RESPECT TO RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 101, in line 28, leave out from 'outside' to 'and' in line 29 and insert:
'that area but within the permitted distance for the purposes of section 10(l)(ii) of this Act as it applies to that Executive';

No. 103, in line 36, leave out 'meeting those needs' and insert:
'the provision for that area of such a system of public passenger transport as is referred to in section 9(1) of this Act.';

No. 104, in line 36, at end insert:
(2A) The Railways Board shall furnish the Executive with any information which the Executive may reasonably require for the purposes of the discharge of their functions under subsection (2) of this section;

No. 105, in page 34, line 1, leave out from 'If to first 'of' in line 4 and insert:

'any dispute arises between the Executive and the Railways Board in connection with the provisions of subsection (2) or (2A)';

No. 106, in line 4, leave out 'matter' and insert 'dispute';

No. 107, in line 5, leave out 'such agreement' and insert:
'agreement under the said subsection (2)';

No. 108, in line 7, leave out 'matter or';

No. 110, in line 11, leave out 'matter or'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 21

PROVISIONS AS TO FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH DESIGNATED AREAS

Amendment made: No. 111, clause 21, in page 36, line 7, leave out ' Exchequer' and insert ' Consolidated Fund '.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 26

GENERAL POWERS OF SCOTTISH GROUP

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is Amendment No. 113, in page 40, line 30, leave out ' any' and insert ' related'.
With this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments: No. 114, in line 33, at end insert:
'and which comprised a substantial part of the activities of that subsidiary ';
No. 115, in line 37, at beginning insert:
(1) The objects of The Bus Company and the Scottish Group each shall be—

(a)to hold and manage the securities vested in them by virtue of this Act, and
(b)to exercise the rights attached to those securities,
as if the Bus Company and the Scottish Group were each a company engaged in a commercial enterprise and each shall exercise control over its subsidiaries so as to ensure that each subsidiary acts as a company so engaged; and No. 116, in line 40, at beginning insert' subsections (2) to (5) of'.

12.15 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to an intolerable situation and ask your guidance on how we can try to unravel that situation. We are now moving to the


Scottish section of the Report stage and a large number of Scottish hon. Members are tied up in a Standing Committee in Room 14, having tried hard to get that Committee Sitting adjourned so that they can do their duty by taking part in discussion of this section of the Bill. Obviously, at the behest of the Government, they have not been able to adjourn that Committee.
I believe that this matter of such importance that if that Committee will not run its affairs properly and sensibly this House should help its members to do so. I suggest that this House adjourns so that matters to do with Scottish detailed provisions may have the help of all hon. Members who sit for Scottish constituencies. This is a matter in which Parliament must look to itself. Otherwise we shall reach a state of affairs where we shall have to go out to a referendum to find what the people want because their accredited representatives cannot put their point of view.
I ask your guidance. Will you accept the adjournment of this Report stage so that the Scottish section can have the assistance of those hon. Members who are at present tied up in the Scottish Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid I am unable to help the hon. Member. I am bound by the time-table Motion, which of course makes it possible only for the Government to move a dilatory Motion of any kind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wonder if it is possible to ask the Scottish spokesman on the Treasury Bench to take advantage of the suggestion you have made? Your Ruling makes it perfectly clear that if the spokesman for the Government does not take advantage of your suggestion he will be deliberately putting hon. Members from Scottish constituencies at a disadvantage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am unable to accept the gloss which the hon. Member puts on my Ruling. I merely indicated that the time-table Motion leaves dilatory Motions to the Government alone, and they must be the people to decide them. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Younger: May I make a suggestion? Although—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I endeavoured to help the hon. Member

for Peterborough (Mr. Harmar Nicholls) this is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) cannot speak further to it as it is not a point of order.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 40, line 30, leave out 'any' and insert 'related'.
This Amendment and the Amendments we are taking with it provide the only opportunity we shall have to discuss the Scottish transport group. I regard it as utterly shameful and a cynical disregard of the views of the people of Scotland that the Government should so organise affairs that my hon. Friends have to choose between attending an important Committee upstairs or taking part in this discussion. We cannot discuss this matter, but it will go out to the people of Scotland by whom it will be heard— [Interruption.]

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have indicated the Amendments which can be discussed. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has started his speech in his usual bursting blood vessel way, but has not dealt with anything in the Amendment. He is dealing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that feelings run high. I have allowed the hon. Member to express his feelings, but it would be wise if we came to the Amendment. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: I will not spend time talking about this because it would not be in order. However, I know that what has happened today will be noted by every Scot in Scotland.

Mr. Peter Mahon: On a point of order. In the hearing of many hon. Members a grave accusation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that my hon. Friend had been selling Scotland, his native country, down the river for years.

Mr. Taylor: Nonsense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure sure that the hon. Member is now coming to the Amendment. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor: These Amendments are vital because they deal with Scottish transport. This is a matter of concern to every Scottish Member. Transport is vital to Scotland and transport costs are vital to our economy, and it is a matter of concern when we consider the intolerable burdens which have been placed upon transport by this discredited Government.
We want to ask many questions on these Amendments and I hope we can have clear answers. The one vital question that we want clarified—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will listen. We know that he does not like the truth concerning the damage which this Government is inflicting on the Scottish economy. In Committee we sat for hour after hour listening to his comments. He should now listen to some of the facts, although he may not like to hear them.
We raised many questions in Committee. If the Minister will look at col. 1262 of the Committee proceedings he will see some of the important questions which we asked. He said at that time that he would explain the answers not once, but three times in Clause 9. Because of that our discussions came to a speedy conclusion. Looking at Clause 9 we find not a single word about this matter. Therefore, we put down the other three Amendments which we are now discussing on the financial disciplines imposed on the new Scottish Transport Group. We wanted to know what the position was. Would it just have a duty to make ends meet comparing one year with another? Would it operate, as we suggest in Amendment No. 116, as a commercial enterprise? The Minister gave a crystal clear answer when he said:
The statutory provision for the Holding Company in the 1962 Transport Act was that it should be run as a commercial organisation, and in this Bill in practice the position for the S.T.G. will be essentially the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February 1968, c. 1320.]
There was a crystal clear comment that the Scottish Transport Group would be run as a commercial enterprise on the same basis as the Transport Holding Company. Nothing could be clearer or more straightforward.
On the other hand, when we look at the provisions in the Bill, it is clear that the Scottish Transport Group is not

being run on the same basis as the Transport Holding Co. It is, in effect, given an obligation to make ends meet comparing one year with another. It is on the basis of a nationalised concern, not on the basis of a commercial enterprise as is the case with the Transport Holding Co.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchinson: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you realise that there is a Division going on in the Scottish Committee in Room 14?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not realise that, but I realise it now.

Mr. Taylor: The intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) clearly shows that Scottish Members are being forced to abandon a vital discussion on the Floor of the House to go to an equally vital discussion upstairs. If we are proud of the fact that the only discussion we are having on the Scottish Transport Group coincides with a vital discussion upstairs on the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, let hon. Gentlemen opposite tell the people of Scotland how they are shamefully abusing their best interests in this House.

Earl of Dalkeith: On a point of order. Will it be possible to adjourn the House for a few minutes to enable Scottish Members to go to this Division?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I am afraid that is not possible. I think that we shall make more progress if there is less noise.

Mr. Taylor: Of course, the Government will make more progress if they arrange their affairs so that vital discussions on Scottish matters are carried out in such a way that the majority of my hon. Friends are unable to attend.
Will the Minister clarify the financial disciplines? Section 29(6) of the 1962 Act says that the Holding Company shall run its affairs as if it
were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise.
We see the result in the activities of the Transport Holding Co. It made a return on its capital liabilities of 10 per cent. in 1966 and 14 per cent. in 1965 on the basis of a commercial enterprise.
In Amendment No. 116 we suggest that the financial duties of the Scottish Transport Group should be amended so that subsection (1) of this Clause in the 1962 Act should be taken out. We have a clear distinction. Should it be run as a commercial enterprise, or should it be run as the transport boards under the 1962 Act, apart from the Holding Co.?
If the Minister is not prepared to accept Amendment No. 116, I suggest that in Committee he misled us about the financial disciplines of the Scottish Transport Group. Will he explain precisely why he said in column 1320 of the Committee proceedings that the Scottish Transport Group would be run as a commercial organisation as the Holding Co. was under the 1962 Act, and yet he does not make statutory provision for this to be made?
In Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 we have suggested that some limit should be put on the fringe activities of the Scottish Transport Group. If there is some fringe activity associated with one of its subsidiary companies some limit should be put on its expansion. The Minister of State, discussing the Passenger Transport Executive a few minutes ago, said that he would carry out a policy to restrict fringe activities. Surely the same applies to the Scottish Transport Group.
What happens to these fringe activities is important. We discussed them in Committee. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, without wasting one second of the Committee's valuable time, explained how one of these fringe activities related to sea-going activities and how the Central Ayrshire Labour Party took over a ship once a year, on which the red flag was flying, to make sure that it was clear where their loyalties lay. He said that it was important that the Scottish Transport Group should be able to extend into travel agent activities apart from its existing limited activity.

Mr. Manuel: I am gratefulto the hon. Gentleman for giving way,despite his spurious allegation about me.Clause 26(l)(m) states:
with the consent of the Secretary of State, to carry on any activities which the Group would not apart from this paragraph have power to carry on but which a subsidiary of the Group was carrying on immediately before it became such a subsidiary.

The activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerning the Central Ayrshire Labour Party will still be there under the Bill, but he and his hon. Friends would hive it off and not allow them to do it.

Mr. Taylor: We have more important matters to discuss than the future of the Central Ayrshire Labour Party. My point is that any extension of these fringe activities should be on the basis of fair competition.
How can we have this done on a fair and competitive basis unless the Minister is prepared to accept our Amendments which will put the Scottish Group on the basis of a commercial enterprise? Clause 45 gives to the Scottish Group an unlimited power to expand into manufacturing activities. On what basis will these activities be carried out—as commercial enterprises in the Group? Will this apply to the traffic agents? We must have a clear assurance.
Does the Minister stand by his words in c. 1230 of the Committee debate, and if so will he accept our Amendments, particularly No. 116? I have deliberately cut my remarks short, knowing that other Members want to take part. It is a shameful and sorry day for Parliament when such an important matter affecting Scotland should be debated on a day when the Government have so arranged affairs that all of my hon. Friends cannot be present.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: In case my hon. Friend should have any doubt, I recommend him to resist these Amendments. I am astonished at what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, particularly the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). They have placed such emphasis on the importance of this to Scotland, and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) of selling Scottish interests down the river. What is this great issue which five Scottish Members, and one self-appointed High Commissioner for Scotland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), have taken up so much time? What is this world-shattering event which will so affect Scotland— to leave out "any", and to insert "related"! One has only to look at the


Amendment to see what a great deal of difference it will make.
The Opposition are trying to restrict the power of the Scottish Group. Why do they talk about fringe activities, and why do they not want the Group to take part in such activities? Is it because such activity represents high profits and because they want private enterprise to have the cream? They put the same point in Committee and yet they bring it forward now, after complaining about not having sufficient time for debate. They bring forward minute differences and make great issues out of them.
The issue of Scotland being neglected is synthetic indignation. They have had assurances that the Scottish Group will be run on a strictly commercial basis. Do commercial firms engage in fringe activities? Of course. Bakery firms sell cars. That is a fringe activity. It is all right for private enterprise, but when we start to take the power so that we can operate in such fringe activities, and make the profits, the Opposition seek to put into the Bill restrictions preventing that.
Two of the most successful companies in Britain are the Rank Organisation and I.C.I. Both have engaged in fringe activities to the highest possible degree. They are both companies making large profits, very often from such fringe activities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about selling Scotland down the river, but they are trying to sell the Scottish Group down the river and make sure that it does not have the power to engage in profitable activities. I am astonished that they can have the audacity to make such statements, knowing the facts, knowing that they are not protecting Scotland's interests, but the free enterprise people who make the profits in Scotland.

Mr. James Davidson: I support these Amendments very strongly indeed. I have been asked to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) would have liked to have spoken, but he is stuck upstairs in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) also would wish to have spoken, but he is on a Commission in Edinburgh. It is very poor that this Scottish business has been

put on at the same time as other Scottish business.
I could not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). He is perpetually astonished and I did not know what was astonishing him on this occasion. He talked about denying fringe activities to a nationalised concern, but permitting them to commercial concerns. Surely this is the basis of the difference between nationalised industries and private enterprise. If one sets up a nationalised industry one does not do so to engage in all sorts of fringe activities in order to justify and make the action acceptable.

Mr. Doig: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his argument holds good when at the same time that nationalised industry is told that it must be run on a commercial basis?

Mr. Davidson: I think that it is absolutely consistent. If a nationalised industry is to be set up—and the Liberal Party has always taken the view that in certain circumstances, and this is not one in my view, it may be necessary to set up a nationalised industry where it is inevitable that all the resources will form a monopoly—it should not be given carte blanche to engage in all sorts of fringe activities which would help to make it pay. It is perfectly legitimate for a commercial concern to diversify as much as necessary to make its activities pay. This is the essence of commercial activity.
The chief reason why we are in favour of these Amendments is because there is no good reason for the establishment of a Scottish Group. We agree that it would be fine if we can achieve a properly co-ordinated transport system, but that seems to be just a catch phrase. Let me give one outstanding example, which occurred during the period of office of this present Labour Government. The railway station at Dyce Airport has been closed, along with a lot of other stations on the line from Aberdeen to Inverness. It is a station situated right on the airport. Even if we were to achieve a co-ordinated transport system, the last thing we want to do is to shut down the one railway station situated on an airport. If it had been left open, and the timetables scheduled to fit in with those of B.E.A. this would have put the towns


of Inverurie, Elgin and others, on an airport. One could have come straight from the plane, on to the train to one's destination. But to talk about co-ordinating the transport system and setting up this extraordinary Scottish Transport Group when no effort is being made in practice to achieve a co-ordinated system is just sheer humbug.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Since the hon. Gentleman is so greatly concerned about the closing of this station, can we take it that he supports other parts of the Bill which include provision of subsidies to keep such stations going?

Mr. Davidson: Yes, I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) has already said that in Committee proceedings. It seems to me that this is merely going to set up an extra layer over and above our already existing authorities when all that would be necessary to achieve a co-ordinated transport system under the general umbrella of the Transport Holding Company already existing would be to get local and regional managers of the air, rail and bus services to match their timetables. That, surely, is the essence of achieving a coordinated transport system, rather than setting up an extra bureaucratic body over them, to try to direct what they should do, a body which will no doubt need large office staffs with additional expense to the taxpayer.
May I also reiterate a point made from the Opposition Front Bench that under the actual wording in the Bill there appears to be no limitation on the fringe activities in which the Transport Holding Company can take part. Apparently it could set up as travel agents or operate as teashop caterers, or do almost anything under the sun it might wish. It seems to me that this is going to impose not only extra bureaucracy but extra expense on the taxpayer. By all means let us have a co-ordinated transport system. That is what is wanted on all sides of the House. But I do not believe that to set up a Scottish Transport Group in place of the existing transport company will achieve that.

Mr. Miichael Heseltine: I intervene briefly to point out to the Minister of State that whilst the Government have chosen to make this a Scottish debate—and we have heard of the

great difficulties caused to our colleagues upstairs—it is a debate embracing the National Bus Company which has not the power to run into Scotland; and when that aspect is discussed we will not be satisfied with a reply by the Minister of State for Scotland. We shall want to hear from the Minister of Transport whom I hope will be here.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In view of that comment and the comment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, West (Mr. James Davidson) it might be useful if I made some response at this stage. Other hon. Gentlemen who may want to pursue the matter will no doubt do so. First of all, I do not accept the general doctrine that a Scottish Minister can speak only on Scottish Clauses. During all the stages of the Bill, I have spoken as often as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, with other of my colleagues, on matters affecting Great Britain; because we in the Scottish Office take the view that as Scottish Ministers we are also British Ministers.
It is unfair to ask British Ministers who are not Scottish Ministers to speak on specifically Scottish points. Everybody recognises that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has complained on several occasions about Scottish Ministers not being present at some particular moment. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have the presence of Scottish Ministers when specifically Scottish points are being made, but Scottish Ministers are fully entitled to answer British points, including points on the National Bus Company.

Mr. Heseltine: I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but when this matter was discussed in Committee, a large number of questions were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, to which I shall wish to refer; and I feel, therefore, that it is only fair to suggest that someone from that Ministry might be present.

12.45 p.m.

Dr. Mabon: That may be possible. I do not know. I can only say I am quite willing to respond. P.T.A.s will apply to Glasgow just as they will apply to England. In the context of the enabling powers of Part II, they will apply


to Great Britain, which of course includes Scotland.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman indicating that there should be a P.T.A. for the Glasgow area?

Dr. Mabon: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman is so busy jumping to conclusions that he gets muscle bound. The answer is no. We have not made up our minds. We have an enabling Clause and we are prepared to await the facts before making up our minds. There are no leaps in the dark taken from this side.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Why should Scotland be in a position of having to wait for transportation surveys when the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom is to have them foisted upon it?

Dr. Mabon: The answer is because the history of transport development in Scotland is different from that in England. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to apply straitjacket United Kingdom solutions to all parts of these islands. We are not racial in Scotland. On Amendments 115 and 116 the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cathcart surpassed himself in managing to misrepresent my position. The financial duty of the Bus Company and of the Scottish Group will be the same as that of all the nationalised transport boards as laid down in Section 18(1) of the 1962 Act—and I presume there is no quarrel between us on that —which is applied by Clause 27(1) in this Bill; that is to conduct their business so as to secure that their revenue is not less than sufficient to meet all charges properly chargeable to revenue taking one year with another. The financial duty of the P.T.E.s will be basically the same.
I made it clear in Committee that the Bus Company and Scottish Group will be run on commercial lines. They will have a financial target set by the Government in accordance with the principles laid down in the two White Papers on the Economic Objectives of the Nationalised Industries. They will thus be expected by the Government not just to break even—after providing for interest on capital—but to make provision for the replacement of their assets at current prices and for a contribution to general reserves. I said all this in Committee. The hon. Gentleman answered himself by

referring to Clause 45(7). The Statute specifically refers to the fact that they must follow commercial principles in their operation.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, when the 1962 Act was passed the Transport Holding Company took over a number of companies in Scotland. One of the best examples was the Tayforth group of companies, which included a road haulage firm which controlled egg-packing stations and sales of grocers' sundries. It is true that since then these interests have been disposed of, but if the Government were to accept Amendment No. 113 we would be denied that right, because of the existence of the egg-packing stations and sales of grocers' sundries, to take over even the principal part of the road haulage firms with which we are concerned. I am seeking to argue that Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 would essentially weaken the initial stages of the formation of the Scottish Group.

Mr. Michael Noble: What is to prevent anyone wishing to take over such a group from saying if they sell these fringe things, as happened with the Tayforth Group, that the main part comes within the Transport Group?

Dr. Mabon: That is a perfectly fair point in that case, but in some circumstances the operator may not be willing to sell only part of the firm. That is the difficulty. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen from rural areas should be offended by the proposal for a Scottish Transport Group. It would be essentially a good thing for Scotland to own many of its own buses and ferries. With a coastline as fragmented as ours, it is very important to get co-ordination between buses and ferries. This is one example of Home Rule in operation which I should have thought would be welcomed by all Members. Instead of that, the Liberal Party is on record as being opposed to the Scottish Transport Group in essence. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) was not misleading us. He was against the Transport Group, and we understand that the Scots Liberals are also against it. We note that with concern.

Mr. James Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me slightly. I gave clearly our reasons for being opposed to it, which are that it seeks to take over


powers far and away outside those of operating transport in Scotland. If it were a body subject to the electorate which would help to co-ordinate the ferries and different types of transport, that would be quite a different thing, which we should not be against.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman cannot skate away from that one. He will have to read again what he said. He was arguing for a different standard for public enterprise as against private enterprise. He wanted a standard for private enterprise with which I agree, but an entirely different standard for public enterprise. This is ambivalence which I cannot understand. He does not want a publicly-owned Scottish Transport Group. We have noted that and we shall tell the Highlanders and Islanders that that is what the Liberal Party stands for.

Mr. Davidson: May I make it clear that we stand for a co-ordinated Scottish transport system.

Dr. Mabon: The fact is that private enterprise, for perfectly understandable reasons, cannot sustain an adequate transport system in the Highlands without substantial public subsidy. That has been proved for years. This is a method of trying to make sure that there is an efficient and improved transport system, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in particular. The hon. Gentleman has gone on the record as being opposed to the Transport Group. With these Amend-

ments, which he supports, he wants to hobble the group right at the beginning.
One rural bus operator has already told us that he would want to sell out his firm. He also happens to be the local undertaker. Are we to refuse to buy this man's concern because we shall be unable initially to carry on the undertaking business? I am advised that we cannot define this as carriage of passengers within the Statute. That is a small example. If the hon. Gentleman knew the area, he would be rather concerned to think that he was debarring us from taking over that rural bus concern at the operator's request. That is what Amendment No. 113 seeks to do.

Mr. Bessell: Will the hon. Gentleman try to understand the Liberal position on this? It is not an objection to a coordination of bus services or other forms of transport. It is an objection to the public sector going into risky ventures, which it is allowed to do under the Bill. That should be left to the private sector, which is dealing with private money and not with public money as the Scottish Transport Group will be doing.

The proceedings on Consideration of the Bill having continued for five and a half hours after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to One o'clock, p.m.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

CHRIST CHURCH WITH SAINT ANDREW AND SAINT MICHAEL, EAST GREENWICH BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

MERSEY TUNNEL (LIVERPOOL/WALLASEY) BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster, signified.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

SALVATION ARMY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

HOUNSLOW CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 11th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Companies (Public Ownership)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power if he will undertake to inform the House whenever a new company is brought into public ownership, either directly or through acquisition by a publicly-owned industry under his control.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Information about companies bought by the nationalised fuel industries is included in their Annual Reports and Accounts which are laid before the House.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House attach the greatest importance to his making it known when further acts of nationalisation take place? Why will he not accede to this request and announce the fact?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has asked if we will undertake to inform the House and I have told him that this information is published annually and laid before the House.

Fuel Prices

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power what action he is taking in accordance with Government policy to secure lower fuel prices for consumers.

Mr. Freeson: The White Paper on Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 3438) sets out the Government's position on this.

Mr. Lane: Is the Government confident, after the recent increases in price of gas, electricity and coke, that consumers, including coal consumers, can now expect that there will at least be no further increases before the end of next year?

Mr. Freeson: That is a very general question following on from the previous one. No Minister is in a position to answer at any particular moment when there will be a price increase of any kind in the nationalised industries. I can give


a general undertaking, as I have in the House before, that there is not likely to be a series of increases in these industries for some time to come.

Gas and Electricity (Joint Meter Readings)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Power what are the conclusions of the Departmental study of joint meter reading and billing by the gas and electricity industries.

Mr. Freeson: Preliminary conclusions are that, although very big savings cannot be expected, it is worth while investigating the feasibility of joint meter reading by the gas and electricity industries. I hope that the two industries will soon carry out joint studies. Investigation of joint billing must await the outcome of this study and further development of data processing.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: May we have an assurance that progress on this matter is not being held up by any opposition to change: in either the electricity or the gas industry?

Mr. Freeson: No. As a matter of fact, I have had a series of consultations up and down the country on the subject recently. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is co-operation in this matter.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentle-realise that hon. Members on this side of the House have been pressing for this for over 3½ years? Now it appears that we have got to the stage when it is announced that a feasibility study is feasible. Is the Minister aware that European countries are already getting considerable savings from improved meter reading and billing methods. Cannot we get some speed on this matter?

Mr. Freeson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not scream about a subject which is rather difficult and quite complicated. Studies are proceeding. There have been extensive consultations on the matter, and work on pilot schemes in two parts of the country will proceed as soon as possible.

Nationalised Industries (Board Members' Salaries)

Sir B Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to rationalise the structure of salaries

paid to board members of the coal, gas and electricity industries.

The Minister of Power (Mr. R. J. Gunter): The structure is kept under review but perhaps the hon. Member will let me know if he has any specific proposals.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that the present structure of salaries is attracting and retaining the services of men of appropriate calibre, at the same time leaving room to give appropriate incentives to men at intermediate levels in these industries?

Mr. Gunter: We are able to attract the right men for these jobs. There is an argument about whether these salaries should be competitive with private industry. I do not attach all that importance to it. The large salaries paid in private industry are for prestige purposes, and they are not of very much greater value when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has finished with them.

New Housing Developments (Electricity Connection Charges)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Power whether agreement has now been reached between the electricity industry and the Gas Council about electricity connection charges in new housing developments.

Mr. Freeson: No. My right hon. Friend has not yet completed his review of this question which he is conducting with the Gas and Electricity Councils.

Mr. Silvester: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter was raised originally in the 1965 fuel White Paper, and will he agree that it is undesirable for connection charges to be used as a weapon in the competition for securing central heating contracts on new housing estates?

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman has a special point in mind about the latter part of his supplementary question, no doubt he will get in touch with my Department. This is a difficult subject to study within the industries. There are problems of relating charges to the actual capital expenditure involved in establishing services on new housing estates and the like. There is also the


question of trying to maintain freedom of choice to individual consumers buying houses.

Consultative Councils

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of Power if he will consider initiating measures to increase and improve the awareness of the general public of the existence and function of the various consultative councils for which his Department is concerned.

Mr. Freeson: I have initiated discussions on the Consumer Council's Report on Consultative Machinery in the Nationalised Industries with chairmen of the consultative councils and these will continue. Meanwhile, the councils are already using a wide variety of measures to make themselves known, and they are now considering whether anything further can be done to increase public awareness of their work.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he cares to speak to me later I will be pleased to give his some information which would assist in improving the public awareness of these activities? Would he agree that these councils cannot fulfil the useful role for which they are designed unless they take steps to make the general public aware of what they do and how to get in touch with them?

Mr. Freeson: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is need for the public to be made aware and to be kept informed of the existence of these organisations. If my hon. Friend, any hon. Member or any member of the public has ideas and suggestions to make in this respect I will be glad to receive them.

Coal and Electricity Industries (Management Consultants)

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Power how many times the nationalised coal and electricity industries, respectively, have made use of management consultants over the last five years.

Mr. Gunter: I understand that both industries have made considerable use of consultants. I am asking the chairmen to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. Sinclair: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to consider turning over to consultants all the efficiency audits which are now carried out entirely by the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.

Natural Gas

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Gas Council about price reductions for consumers converted to natural gas.

Mr. Freeson: This is primarily a matter for area gas boards to settle in discussion with their consultative councils, though my right hon. Friend is kept informed of the policies that boards are adopting.

Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that any reductions by area boards will strike an appropriate balance between industrial and domestic users?

Mr. Freeson: The gas boards are conducting their policies according to the requirements laid on them by Statute not to exercise undue preference in these matters.

Dr. Gray: Why is Great Yarmouth to be one of the last towns to be converted to natural gas when it is one of the nearest to the source of discovery?

Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to answer that question now, but if my hon. Friend will write to the Gas Council I am sure that he will receive an explanation.

Gas Charges (Industrial Consumers)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power what is the average price of gas to industrial consumers in Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. Freeson: The average realised price for gas sold to industrial consumers in 1966–67, in pence per therm, was 19·1 in Scotland, 13·3 to 20·1 in England and 14·2 in Wales.

Mr. Eadie: Do I take it from that Answer that industrial gas in Scotland is very much cheaper than elsewhere in the United Kingdom? In any event, is my hon. Friend aware that consumers


of gas feel that they have been "conned" by high pressure advertising about the price of gas, which, for them, will not be cheaper?

Mr. Freeson: I was not seeking to suggest that a lower price is being paid for gas in Scotland. I think that my hon. Friend heard only one of the two figures I gave in the range from 13·3 to 20·1 pence per therm. To answer the latter part of his supplementary question, I would not agree that there has been any "conning" of the public by the gas industry.

Mr. G. Campbell: Do not the figures reveal that the average price of gas in Scotland is much higher than in England and Wales?

Mr. Freeson: It might help if I gave the figures again. They are in pence per therm 19·1 in Scotland, 13·3 to 20·1 in England—but there are many boards in England—and 14·2 in Wales, which also has one board.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that gas is a nationalised service, like the National Health Service, for which we in Scotland do not have to pay more by way of National Insurance contributions? Should not the same principle apply to gas?

Mr. Freeson: The principle operative in the gas industry, as in the electricity and other industries, is that prices must as near as possible reflect the actual costs of production. That cannot be said of the National Insurance Scheme, which is not an industry and which, therefore, does not vary from one part of the country to another.

Mr. Emery: As there still appears to be some confusion about this, will the hon. Gentleman give the average weighted figure for England, which will then show that the industrial consumer is paying much more in Scotland compared with the average figure for the rest of the country?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know why there should be any confusion about this. I explained that there is a range of boards.

Mr. Emery: Answer the question.

Mr. Freeson: I am answering the question. There is a range of boards and these boards run the industry

throughout the country. There is one in Scotland, one in Wales and several in England. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Freeson: Hon. Gentlemen opposite represent the gentlemanly party, no doubt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] The figure for England is, on average, 15-point-something and—[Interruption.] I do not have the exact figure and I have given that one from memory.

Nationalised Industries (Development Areas)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the gas, electricity, coal, and publicly-owned steel industries to diversify their industrial activity in development areas and Hunt Committee areas, so as to provide employment for manpower displaced by rundown of activity or technological innovation in these industries.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir, it would be inappropriate to use powers of direction for such a purpose. The Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy (Cmnd. 3438) outlined the measures to be taken by the Government in certain parts of the development areas likely to be most seriously affected by colliery closures. The Government will consider the position of other areas in the light of the report of the Hunt Committee, which is expected in the autumn.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in South Yorkshire a gas-making plant is being closed down, thus rendering workers redundant, that steel works are working more efficiently and requiring less manpower and that collieries are being closed and making men redundant? Is it not common sense to allow these industries to diversify their activities and so provide alternative employment?

Mr. Gunter: Any proposal that the industries should undertake ancillary activities, not related to their main activities, for social reasons would conflict with the broad general policy that they should, as far as possible, run their businesses as commercial enterprises. To answer my hon. Friend's other point, I said in my Answer that we are awaiting


the Hunt Report; and then we will be able to look at the whole situation.

Mr. Swain: Has my right hon. Friend studied paragraphs 56 to 62 of the T.U.C. Economic Review of 1968? If so, will he seriously consider introducing legislation to implement the principles contained in those paragraphs?

Mr. Gunter: I read that T.U.C. document with great interest, but I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a direction to the British Steel Corporation to sell off those of its activities and actions not directly concerned with the melting and production of bulk steels with a view to providing capital for additional manufacturing projects.

Mr. Freeson: No Sir.

Mr. Shaw: Does the Minister recollect that his right hon. Friend informed me a month ago that it is likely that the Corporation's borrowing powers are to be increased before the Summer Recess? Since then there has been a further savage credit squeeze on private industry. Is not it right that the same restrictions should apply to the State corporations as to private enterprise? Would not this be a very relevant way in which the B.S.C. could make a contribution to financing itself rather than relying on further publicly-raised capital?

Mr. Freeson: A very close examination has been made of the borrowing requirements of the industry. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, which relates to the Question, one must not assume from what I said in reply to that Question that the Corporation will necessarily want to retain all that it has now, but it will have to await the outcome of its general review of its holdings before it can establish those parts which are to be retained and those which are to be closed down, reshaped and so on.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who gain their livelihood through the steel industry and are working under the Corporation would resent any propaganda by way of cheap contributions at a time when the industry

is building itself up very successfully and the level of production has increased from 74 per cent. to 84 per cent. of capacity?

Mr. Freeson: I accept both the content of those remarks and the spirit in which my hon. Friend made them. My references were solely to certain kinds of diversification activities which it will be for the B.S.C. to make a study of and to take decisions on in due course.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Reverting to the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, may I ask whether he recognises that it is indeed encouraging? Will he expedite the study by the Corporation to make sure that it no longer hangs on to the somewhat mixed rag-bag of assets outside the steel industry which it took over on nationalisation?

Mr. Freeson: That is a job for the B.S.C, and I am confident that it will undertake it as expeditiously as it can.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to ease the capital burden of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Gunter: None, Sir, at present.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is widely agreed that the steel industry was taken over at grossly inflated compensation and that it is entirely wrong that yet another nationalised industry and the workers in it should have to bear a totally disproportionate and unnecessary burden?

Mr. Gunter: These matters are under review, and it is too early yet to have the views of the British Steel Corporation on the matter my hon. Friend is talking about.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the economies achieved for the Exchequer and the taxpayer by the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and others, who achieved some reduction in the compensation, it is still the case that the compensation is extremely high? Does not he think that it would be advisable, in the interests of the industry, that the matter should be reconsidered now rather than imposing


a burden on the industry for years to come?

Mr. Gunter: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend that it is time for reconsideration now. The terms of compensation were fixed. I can only repeat that these and kindred matters are now under review by the Corporation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If the compensation is as high as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggests, is not that a reflection of the fact that some of the steelworks, such as those at Consett and Ebbw Vale, should be closed down as part of any process of rationalisation?

Mr. Gunter: That argument does not follow at all. It is not true. The steel trade is internationally weak at present and provides an insufficient basis for a judgment on the amount of compensation to be paid.

Fuel (Regional Pricing)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the substantial additional costs of coal and gas in Scotland, he will review his policy on regional pricing in the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend considers that regional differences in costs, if substantial, should be reflected in prices.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the facts that coal costs £1 a ton more in Scotland than the average in England and Wales and that gas is 25 per cent. above the average for England and Wales are great disincentives to industry in Scotland? Can he give a categorical assurance that the nationalised steel industry will not impose differential prices in place of the present uniform prices?

Mr. Freeson: The latter question is a matter for the B.S.C. to take into account in its present studies of pricing policy. We have discussed the first point across the Floor of the House many times in the past year. What ever the merits or demerits of postalised prices, I must repeat that it does not necessarily follow that if we operated such a policy all development areas would benefit from it. Some would suffer.

Gas, Scotland (Price)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power what are the principal reasons why the price of gas in Scotland in 1966–67 was over 25 per cent. in excess of the average price in England and Wales.

Mr. Freeson: The principal reason was the higher cost of supply.

Mr. Taylor: The higher cost of coal— is that the case?

Mr. Freeson: The higher cost of supply produces higher pricing on the basis of the Answers to previous Questions.

Mr. W. Baxter: I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his Answer to this and the previous Question and give more serious consideration to the very disadvantageous position of industry in Scotland when it has to pay so much more for fuel than industry in the South.

Mr. Freeson: We are aware of the difficulties here, but my hon. Friend will also be aware that many efforts are being made, chiefly by other Government Departments, to assist in the dispersal of industry and in getting industry to develop in those parts of the country, such as Scotland, which are in great need of it.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Central Electricity Generating Board (Consultants)

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Minister of Power whether he will issue a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to employ independent British engineering surveying and design consultants, in view of the importance of this type of work in the United Kingdom to such consultants to enable them to continue and to increase their contribution to United Kingdom invisible exports.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. The C.E.G.B. already employs consultants where appropriate. It also helps consultants operating overseas in a number of ways.

Mr. Boardman: Does not the Minister realise the enormous contribution to invisible exports made by consultants in such work? Will he give a general direction that they have the firm base of the nationalised industries making the maximum use of their services?

Mr. Freeson: There is no need for a general direction for this purpose. I have already said that the C.E.G.B. does assist in this respect.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the C.E.G.B. has in its direct employment some of the ablest power supply engineers in the world? Therefore, if exports are to be assisted, that might well be done by the C.E.G.B. being allowed to give consultancy services abroad.

Mr. Freeson: It is certainly true that the C.E.G.B. employs some of the ablest people in this work. The latter part of my hon. Friend's question is a matter for the C.E.G.B. to take into account.

British Steel Corporation Staff (Trade Union Representation)

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Minister of Power if, in the national interest, he will issue a directive to the British Steel Corporation that staff employed by the Corporation should be represented by a trade union of their own choice.

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Minister of Power whether in Human Rights Year he will issue a directive in the public interest to the British Steel Corporation to recognise the right of its staff members to join a union of their choice and for that union to be recognised for negotiating purposes.

Mr. Gunter: No. Sir. The Iron and Steel Act, 1967, already requires the Corporation to consult the trade unions about the establishment of machinery for negotiation and joint consultation.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not my right hon. Friend consider it intolerable that thousands of clerical staff are being denied the right to join the union of their choice? Will he make representations to the Steel Board, particularly in view of the fact that the staff are now considering withdrawing their labour in support of a claim for recognition?

Mr. Gunter: My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity had a meeting yesterday with the interested parties. The matter is being followed up with the Trades Union Congress. That this is arising should not be placed entirely at the door of the Steel Corporation for there are certain difficulties, whether small or great, between the unions themselves.

Mr. Yates: Was it visualised by the Government when they nationalised the steel industry that the nationalised board should lay down an unjust regulation of this kind and refuse the right to members to join the union of their choice? Why should my right hon. Friend not ask the Board, in accordance with the wishes of those who believe in nationalisation, to allow them to join the union of their choice?

Mr. Gunter: I understand the views of my hon. Friend and I have a great deal of sympathy with him in this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not want sympathy."] I have no power to direct the Board to do anything of this character. All that the Act obliges the Corporation to do is to
seek consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that it would be better to leave this with the First Secretary of State, who is continuing her consultations with the Steel Corporation and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Corporation is continuing the practice of the former owners of the steel industry by resisting any recognition of white collar unions and also the practice of paying money to an organisation which excludes from benefit any employee who is a member of a trade union? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he think that is a good way for a public corporation to behave? Is he telling us that he can do nothing about it?

Mr. Gunter: If that is the way it is behaving, of course it is wrong, but I do not know about it. I still suggest that the procedures which it would be best to follow would be the consultations with the Trades Union Congress and the Steel Corporation which are being held


by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, with his vast experience of labour matters, that it is an absolute human right to be able to join the union of one's choice?

Mr. Gunter: I find the suggestion of the hon. Member impeccable and I am in entire agreement with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Heavy Water Plant

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the Central Electricity Generating Board to consider with industry plans for a 200-ton a year heavy water plant based on an interruptible power supply.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. This would not be an appropriate subject for a general direction.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we are to sell the steam generating heavy water reactor to overseas customers we must be able to supply the heavy water, of which a world shortage is developing? We may not be able to get it from United States sources. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the load of heavy water manufacturing plant would be convenient for the generating authorities, particularly if it is on an interruptible basis?

Mr. Gunter: The information we have is that there is no requirement at the present time for the 200-ton a year plant mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The information that we have is that it is far in excess of any requirement that we can foresee.

Electricity Industry (Structure)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the progress of his consultations on the future structure of the electricity industry.

Mr. Gunter: I have at present nothing to say about this except that I am continuing the examination, begun by my predecessor, to see whether any changes

in the organisation and structure of the electricity industry need to be made.

Mr. Lane: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make a statement before the Summer Recess, and in his examination will he keep very much in mind the view expressed by the Prices and Incomes Board that the generating side of the industry ought to be more exposed to market pressures?

Mr. Gunter: I am very much aware of the remark made by the Prices and Incomes Boards. I cannot say that I will make a statement before the Summer Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

National Coal Board (Brick-making Activities)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Power if he will introduce legislation to denationalise the brick-making activities of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the profit performance of private brick companies, particularly in contrast to that of the subsidiaries of the National Coal Board, makes this a preeminently suitable activity for free enterprise?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman should be aware if he is following the brick-making capacity of the National Coal Board that it is pre-eminently a suitable activity for the Board. Over the years, in spite of difficulties in the last year or so, it has done very well with its brick-making capacity.

Mr. Ridley: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the brick side of the National Coal Board's activities will not be allowed to have its capital written off as it did the last time the House wrote off £415 million?

Mr. Freeson: The question of the capital reconstruction of the industry is looked at as a whole from time to time over the years, and at the present moment there is no intention of reconstructing its capital.

National Coal Board (Revenue Accounts)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power what has been the net profit or loss, overall, achieved by the National Coal Board since its inception.

Mr. Gunter: The aggregates of the annual surpluses and deficits on the National Coal Board's revenue accounts at March, 1967, showed a net deficit of £115 million on a turnover of £15,156 million.

Sir J. Eden: What prospects does the right hon. Gentleman offer taxpayers before long of getting a better return on their capital invested in the coal industry?

Mr. Gunter: I think that it will be generally agreed that, despite all its major problems, the coal industry has made remarkable progress. A look at the productivity table of what is happening in the best of our pits reveals that very substantial steps have been taken.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, if the private sector of the economy had served the nation as well as the publicly-controlled coal industry in the last 20 years, the economy would be in a much better state than it is today? With regard to the figures which he has given to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), can my right hon. Friend say whether they include the social advantages which have accrued from public ownership of the industry?

Mr. Gunter: I want to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the coal industry. It has faced the tremendous problem of contraction with great regard for the social problems inherent in it. Whilst difficulties remain in a contracting industry of this character, and despite all the human problems, I believe that there is a future for our coal industry.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Attlee Government took over the privately-owned coal industry, they took over what was practically a bankrupt affair which had been neglected for years, especially during the six years of the war, and that that is why the National Coal Board has faced financial and other difficulties?

Mr. Gunter: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The aggregated deficit that I have announced today has been caused by successive Governments who have restricted rises in the price of coal when these could have been obtained.

Mr. Emery: Would the Minister not agree that it is a serious position when one sees as great a loss on any capital employed as this? Would he not, therefore, consider what steps the present Government ought to take to ensure that it is put back into surplus as soon as possible?

Mr. Gunter: We ought to get the deficit figure into proportion. Successive Governments have interfered with coal prices when they could have been higher and private industry would have had them. I must tell the House that the closing of uneconomic mines is proceeding apace, giving rise to social problems. The mechanisation of pits proceeds, and the productivity rate of miners at present is at a figure which I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have believed possible a few years ago.

Mr. Swain: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what has been the overall operational profit of the undertaking since vesting day? Does he agree that the high interest rates paid on money borrowed to modernise the industry has had a stranglehold on the industry since vesting day, and would he consider a further cut-back on the capital debt so that the Board can finance modernisation from its own revenue?

Mr. Gunter: It is only 2½ years since the last one. I could not give any hope for another.

National Coal Board (Subsidiary Companies)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power whether he will require the National Coal Board to include in their 1967–68 report detailed accounts for all subsidiary companies, fully owned and partly owned.

Mr. Freeson: The accounts of wholly owned subsidiaries are consolidated in the Board's accounts. Accounts of partly-owned subsidiary companies are summarised in notes 27 and 28 of the


N.C.B. Accounts for 1966–67. This will be continued.

Sir J. Eden: Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in Reports and Accounts published in the future, all purchases which have resulted in a majority shareholding by the National Coal Board or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries will be described?

Mr. Freeson: I thought that I had indicated that the information which the hon. Gentleman seeks is consolidated in the accounts. In addition, information about partly-owned subsidiaries is placed in the Library of the House of Commons. The whole object of these methods is to ensure that Parliament has an oppor-tunity of seeing the information.

Pricing Policies

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what is the result of his consultations with the National Coal Board about its pricing policies.

Mr. Gunter: Consultations are continuing.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that it is intolerable if any elements of subsidy or loss-making in the Coal Board's pricing policy should lead to a greater deficit than the £115 million that he has already announced? May we have an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman will make sure that the Board does not allow prices deliberately to drag it into further deficit?

Mr. Gunter: I do not think that that is the intention of the Board. It may be that I have in my mind the examples of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking. I am satisfied that the Coal Board is conducting its affairs in a proper manner based on commercial principles. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fear will arise.

Contracts

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that it should allow suppliers to compete on level terms for all contracts.

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction to the National Coal

Board, when placing contracts, not to show discrimination in favour of its subsidiary companies.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. I am informed by the Board that contracts are open to competitive tender and that orders are placed on commercial principles.

Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the complaints made by the Swedes against the National Coal Board of discrimination against E.F.T.A. partners, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to give a general direction to the N.C.B. to allow competitive tendering for all opencast and underground mining systems as well as for all other contracts?

Mr. Gunter: Such a direction is not necessary, as I said in my Answer. The N.C.B. has assured me that its contracts are open to competitive tender and that its orders are placed on commercial principles. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases in mind, I suggest that he writes to Lord Robens.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable disquiet over this issue, particularly in relation to instances reported in the Press of cases of open competitive tendering not having been found to be the rule and that the Chairman of the N.C.B. had to make a special exception in one case and drew attention to the lack of any general direction?

Mr. Gunter: I can only repeat what the Chairman of the Board has told me. If hon. Members have specific instances in mind I suggest that it would be proper for them to write to the Chairman.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Although the right hon. Gentleman said that contracts are open to competitive tendering can he go further and say that the lowest tender is accepted?

Mr. Gunter: I do not think that that is a principle which is generally accepted even in private enterprise.

Closed Collieries (Land Clearance)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Power what proportion of the revenues of the National Coal Board are devoted to the clearance of land or buildings left derelict on account of closed or abandoned collieries.

Mr. Gunter: This information is not available as a separate item in the Board's accounts. It forms part of general expenses in Table 2 to the Board's published accounts, which totalled £74 million in 1966–67.

Mr. Hooley: Since the figure in my right hon. Friend's Answer obviously contains a great many diverse items, and in view of the importance to areas like Yorkshire and Humberside of the clearance of land and buildings left derelict, would not my right hon. Friend agree that we should know exactly what revenues the N.C.B. is expending for this socially extremely important purpose?

Mr. Gunter: The detailed information required by my hon. Friend is not available. I understand that detailed inquiries would have to be made in each of the 17 areas to provide the information. I suggest that if my hon. Friend has a word with, or writes to, Lord Robens he might get further help.

Surplus Coal (Disposal)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power if he will appoint an advisory committee on the disposal of surplus coal.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House will resist to the utmost the application of the machinations of profitability to solve this problem? When will he consider carrying out a modern scientific and technological investigation into the problem of derivatives from coal?

Mr. Gunter: The Question was about a committee on the disposal of surplus coal. The level of stocks of coal is kept under constant review by my Department, but the matter is primarily one for the National Coal Board. I am not quite clear what the purpose of setting up an advisory committee would be.

Mr. Emery: I accept that it is primarily the responsibility of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, but would not the Minister agree that over £200 million is now tied up in coal on the ground and the servicing of that amount of capital must run to over £16 million a year? Therefore, there is a need to take some more definite steps than have been taken

in the past to find a way to dispose of that coal.

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the Government's view on this. We think that the stocks are too high and that efforts should be made to reduce them. As Lord Robens has said on two occasions to my knowledge, he hopes to do so.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the fault of consecutive Governments, the Tory Government and ours, that 28 million tons of coal are on the ground? When will my right hon. Friend introduce a new fuel policy which will give coal a real chance to compete with other fuels?

Mr. Gunter: Coal has a chance. I hope that the idea that the coal industry is being run down will be eliminated. What the industry must do and is doing is to reduce its costs by greater productivity, and this is leading inevitably to a reduction in manpower. But all the gimmicks in the world will not save the coal industry. Only the coal industry itself can save it.

Mr. Lubbock: What is the point of the Ministry keeping this matter under review if it will not do anything about it?

Mr. Gunter: This is part of the process of consultation.

Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in the negotiations to determine the arrangements to be made for payment under the redundancy clauses of the Coal Industry Act 1967; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: The Redundant Mine-workers (Payments Scheme) Order, 1968, was laid before Parliament in draft on 21st May and will come into force 14 days after it has been approved by Resolution of each House.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will give general satisfaction throughout the mining areas of Britain and that if the matter can be speeded up to an even greater extent it will expedite greatly the solving of the difficulties which are being faced arising


from the contraction of the mining industry?

Mr. Shinwell: Now that the Order has been presented, will my right hon. Friend expedite the affirmative Resolution procedure, because it is now more than six months since the decision was reached? Can he give a date for the affirmative Resolution?

Mr. Gunter: I could not actually give a date to my right hon. Friend, but I am as anxious as he is about it and I am hoping that it will take place shortly after the Whitsun Recess—as quickly as possible. On the question of delay, there is always a desire to blame Ministers and Government Departments, but this has been a very complex matter in which the miners' union has a very real interest. Consultations continued up to a very short time ago.

ARGENTINE (SHIPYARD ORDER)

Ql. Viscount Lambton: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of his inquiries as to whether the Argentine Government has delayed the placing of an order in United Kingdom shipyards until the future of the Falkland Islands has been decided.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am satisfied that there is no truth in this story, Sir.

Viscount Lambton: Would the Prime Minister say why the provisional orders made by the Argentine Government for ships in the Scott Lithgow merger group and the Yarrow shipyards have not been confirmed? Does he not also agree that the policy initiated by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) of trying to buy business by offering concessions which later could not be honoured has given us the worst of all worlds?

The Prime Minister: The noble Lord has got the facts wrong here. For these naval vessels the Argentine Government are shopping around in a number of countries to get the best terms and prices. We are naturally hoping that we shall get the order. I am satisfied that there is no discrimination and no question of this being allied to the question of the

future of the Falkland Islands. There was reason to suspect that during the ban on the shipment of Argentine meat a number of orders were being held up, but this has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands.

VIETNAM

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister how he proposes that the United Kingdom, as a joint Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, should be represented at the Vietnam peace talks in Paris or elsewhere.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers I gave to Questions on 7th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 206–8.]

Mr. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Foreign Secretary's discussions in Moscow are likely to bear fruit on this? Does he agree that representatives of the co-Chairmen in Paris acting for the people of Vietnam are more likely to bring hope of a lasting political settlement than a stale military armistice?

The Prime Minister: I think the position is as I stated on 7th May. My right hon. Friend's talks in Moscow last week confirm that both co-Chairmen are ready to give whatever help they can when that is the wish of both parties in Paris. I do not think there is a clear desire from those two parties that there should be a co-Chairmen initiative at this stage.

Sir C. Osborne: Is the Prime Minister aware that last night in Moscow it was stated to the delegation there that the trouble lay completely at the doors of the American Government? Was not the Foreign Secretary successful in his talks in Moscow last week in at least removing part of that impression which they hold so firmly?

The Prime Minister: This has been the consistent position of the Soviet Government throughout the Vietnamese dispute. The hon. Member will remember that this was part of the very tough speech made in London by Mr. Kosygin when he was here. That has not prevented the British and Soviet Governments from getting together to help to bring the parties to the conference table. That was


the position on all the recent visits to Moscow and visits here by the Soviet leaders.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when the United States were left to negotiate alone with the North Koreans at Panmunjon on a matter of interest to all nations the result was two years of war which might have been avoided and the true formula was ultimately found in a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly moved and drafted by Sir Anthony Eden?

The Prime Minister: The fact that negotiations took two years is not necessarily a reflection on one side only. It takes two sides to reach agreement. The United Nations, of course, was accepted as having a status in that matter because United Nations troops were in Korea but the North Vietnam Government and the Soviet Government have consistently rejected any suggestion that the United Nations has any rôle to play in the Vietnamese dispute.

PRIME MINISTER (ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Prime Minister what is his practice with regard to answering Questions on matters affecting the responsibilities of more than one Government Department.

The Prime Minister: I have followed previous practice in these matters, Sir.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in spite of the explanation he gave of why he transferred a Question of mine to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the employment of American consultants by the B.B.C. without giving British consultants a chance to submit their proposals is a matter sufficiently serious for him to deal with?

The Prime Minister: I agree about the importance of this Question, but the B.B.C. is a public corporation independent of the Government and the decision about which management consultants to appoint is a matter for its discretion. That does not mean that every Question of importance tabled for me should be transferred, but my right hon. Friend has

responsibility for this subject and it was right that the Question should be transferred.

CIVIL SERVANTS (PUBLICATIONS)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister if he will give a general authority to civil servants to publish articles and books about political matters and personalities.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would it not be common justice to give to serving officers and officials the same right to write about politicians as politicians have of writing about serving civil servants?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case that he would like me to give my attention to, I look forward to considering it.

INDUSTRY (CABINET COMMITTEE)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider establishing a Cabinet Committee to deal with industrial matters.

The Prime Minister: The present arrangements already provide for full Ministerial consideration of these matters, Sir.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the seriousness of the present industrial situation demands closer liaison between industrially-based Departments, and that this can be partially achieved only by co-ordination at the very highest level? Would he also take time to look at Ministerial briefs in the industrially-based Departments?

The Prime Minister: That co-ordination does take place. I spend a good deal of time dealing with these matters. My hon. Friend will be aware of the very close connection that industrial Departments and I have with both sides of industry, through N.E.D.C. and the "Little Neddies".

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister proposing to accept the advice of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, and publish the structure of Cabinet Committees? I hope not.

The Prime Minister: I will be very happy to consider the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman and his wishes in this respect. I stand by the answers I have already given: it is not normal—it never has been. In certain circumstances it has been considered desirable by successive Governments. When it is desirable I will certainly consider it.

Mr. Swain: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a joint committee of the Departments responsible for the various functions would be an advantage to meet representations from areas affected by colliery closures?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with industrial and local government representatives of such areas. On recent regional tours I have given a great deal of time to the problem of areas affected by forthcoming colliery closures.

Mr. David Howell: Is not the main difficulty the fact that there are now six or more Departments trying to horn in on the Government's interventionist policy with industry? Is it not time that the Prime Minister got a central grip on his warring colleagues in this area?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the particular adjective used by the hon. Gentleman in his concluding words. I have already explained to the House the functions of the individual Departments. They are all vitally important functions, and I am in close touch with the work of each of these Departments in the industrial sphere.

GUATEMALA

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the Head of the Guatemalan Government to London for discussions.

The Prime Minister: There are no plans at present for members of the Guatemalan Government to come to London. We are however studying means to end the dispute between our two countries, and if in due course it were to appear that such a visit would be helpful, we would, of course, consider it.

Mr. Wyatt: As the British Government and the British Hondurans have both

rejected the proposed American draft treaty, would it not be a good idea to find out, before British Honduras becomes independent, what effective guarantees can be secured against Guatemala invading her?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the important questions arising out of the fact that the British Honduras Government, and we, following them, have rejected a set of proposals which were not acceptable. These matters are best dealt with through diplomatic channels rather than the suggestion of a visit by the Guatemalan Government leaders to this country at this stage.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is deploying enough defensive strength in that part of the world to defend British subjects from a Guatemalan attack?

The Prime Minister: This is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As was made clear in our last defence debate, we are relating the commitments we have, including that part of the world, to the defence forces available. The hon. Gentleman is experienced in these matters and will realise the reason for discretion about the movements of defence forces, and will no doubt be aware of the deployment of defence forces not very far from that area in the last two or three months.

SPAIN

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the head of the Spanish Government to London for discussions.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: As the ordinary diplomatic channels have been singularly ineffective in persuading General Franco that we do not propose to hand Gibraltar over to him, would it not be a good idea to tell the dictator to his face that we will not do it and that he runs the risk of losing a great deal of valuable travel trade if he does not shut up about Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: Without entering into the particular form of diplomatic language used by my hon. Friend, I would have thought that as a result of the statements made by my right hon. Friend the


Foreign Secretary, and his predecessor, to their opposite number in Madrid, and also after all the other contacts who have been in successive negotiations, the Spanish Government should be in no doubt at all about the position.

Mr. Biggs-Davidson: Does the Prime Minister think that it would be a good idea to set the Head of the Spanish Government a good example in Parliamentary Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's inability to distinguish between democracy in this country and what happens in other countries, including his favourite, Rhodesia, is one reason why his contributions are never taken seriously.

Mr. Molloy: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to make no overtures to the Head of the Spanish Government, as opposed to the ordinary people of Spain, which might be interpreted as a weakness as regards this country's attitude towards Spain and Gibraltar?

The Prime Minister: The statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his predecessor on this matter, particularly the statements since the closing of the border post on the frontier a week ago, should leave the Spanish Government and everyone else concerned in no doubt about our resolve in this matter.

EUROPEAN MOVEMENT (CONFERENCE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the resolutions on European integration, copies of which have been sent to him, passed by the Conference of Parliamentarians from 12 countries which was sponsored by the European Movement and took place in Bonn on 3rd and 4th May, 1968; and what action he intends to take in this matter.

The Prime Minister: We warmly welcome the success of this Conference. The resolutions addressed to us are entirely in line with our policy.

Mr. Davidson: May I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that, in

spite of the present contortions which are shaking France, we are prepared to wait until these contortions are past and take advantage of the improved climate for the British application, and that there is no intention of removing from the table Britain's application to join the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I said last week that I did not propose to make any statement about what was happening in France that might be taken as an intervention in the internal affairs of another country, which would be most unusual. So far as the last part of the question is concerned there is no change at all in the position of Her Majesty's Government. The application stands exactly where it did and we stand behind it.

Mr. John Lee: Could we not take a leaf out of the General's book, and have a referendum on the subject of the Common Market before we pursue it any further?

The Prime Minister: There was a very large majority of this House in favour of the Government's Motion which came before the House a year ago. Whatever short-term difficulties there may have been, both before and since recent events in France, they do not affect the validity of the basic decision taken by the House on that occasion.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Has the Prime Minister read the interesting book written by the right hon. Member for Bat-tersea, North (Mr. Jay), the ex-President of the Board of Trade? If he has read that book, is he prepared to look into the North Atlantic Treaty idea as an alternative to the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry but I have not yet had an opportunity of reading the book written by my right hon. Friend. I hope that I may be able to do so, although I do not think anyone will accuse me of being unaware of the general position of my right hon. Friend, whose views on this matter have been stated in my presence on very many occasions. I think I know what alternatives he and the hon. Baronet have in mind.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if France should move towards a Left-wing Socialist Government


in the near future many of my hon. Friends would be very unhappy that they had not supported her?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can either answer a hypothetical question or enter into speculation about the state of mind of my hon. Friends on that subject.

Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that since we had the debate in this House on the question of applying to join the Common Market, there has been a great shift in the opinions of Members? Could he say what is holding up the Prime Minister in considering other alternatives while the application lies upon the table?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of a substantial shift of opinion in hon. Members sufficient in any way to shake the conclusion reached by the House in May last year. I have explained that the possible alternatives, some of which are probably not practicable, were fully considered before a decision was taken. The delay in meeting Britain's wishes in the matter is not of itself a reason for changing direction in the fundamental sense.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not a melancholy fact that we are denied the political benefits of joining the Common Market?

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that the person who thought that the Government's application to join the Common Market was most brilliantly timed and superbly executed was Mr. Cecil King? Will he, therefore, have second thoughts on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I have many times and in different contexts heard my hon. Friend arguing against the principle of guilt by association. The mere fact that one individual out of 50 million in this country took one view or another at that time does not affect the fact that some 400 or 500 Members of this House took a particular view, and that was the decision of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend care to exercise his customary compassion and, before General de Gaulle retires, invite him to this country so that some hon. Members on these

benches can express their thanks to him for preventing us getting into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that in any circumstances, whatever the purpose of the visit, if my right hon. Friend and General de Gaulle were to enter into a confrontation, many hon. Members would like to be there to witness it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Mr. Emery: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given notice, concerning the problems which affect certain Committees sitting at the same time as the House.
The 17th edition of Erskine May clearly states that
when a Division is called in the House the chairman must suspend the proceedings ' for such time as will, in his opinion, enable members to vote in the division'.
I ask for your Ruling and assistance on two matters. First, this morning, in the Standing Committee on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, a Division in the House arose after a Division in the Committee had been called. The Chairman immediately suspended the Committee for 10 minutes. When the Committee reassembled, 10 minutes later, the Chairman, due to the pressure of the large number of Members voting in the Division, had been unable to get back to the Committee. No one makes any criticism of the Chairman. However, it transpired that the Committee could not reassemble until 12 minutes had elapsed. May I, therefore, ask for a Ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, that a longer time than the present 10 minutes should be allowed, especially as the Chairman of the Committee has most helpfully said that he will consider the matter again.
Secondly, may I—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Emery: Secondly, may I refer to the considerable difficulties that Members find in attempting to do their duty and follow out their obligations both to the Committee and to the House. It can, and is likely to, transpire that an hon. Member who has moved an Amendment in Committee will find that a specific


Amendment affecting his constituents will arise when his duty calls for him to be on the Floor of the House. This will probably happen this afternoon, when certain aspects concerning Devon will arise on Amendments to the Transport Bill. If the Member rightly attends to his principal duty on the Floor of the House, a Division may be taken in Committee on an Amendment that he has moved without his knowing that a Division in Committee has been called.
Hon. Members are trying to co-operate with the Government as much as possible —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in seeing that the legislation which is now being pushed through the House is properly dealt with. Could you, Mr. Speaker, find a method of allowing Members, when they are doing their duty in the House of Commons, to know of Divisions which have specifically been moved on Amendments in Committee, perhaps only if they request it, so that it does not necessarily become a general practice.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: No. Enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help.

Mr. Emery: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a Ruling from you as soon as possible, because the Services Committee, to which this matter might normally be referred, would not be able to deal with it before much of this legislation has gone through the House. As the Services Committee is an advisory body to you, Mr. Speaker, a Ruling from you would be helpful to hon. Members.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been addressed at length on a point of order and I propose to deal with it.
I am glad that in raising this point of order the hon. Member made no criticism of the Chairmen of the Committees upstairs. It would not be in order to appeal to Mr. Speaker against any decision or anything that happened in Committee. I have, and I know that the House has, full confidence in my Chairmen upstairs.
I understand that the other matter is one of difficulty for hon. Members of Parliament who are torn between their

duty to a debate on the Floor of the House and similar duty upstairs. But the arrangement of the business of the House is in no way in the hands of Mr. Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order—so by no Ruling on my part could Mr. Speaker change the business of the House, and there it must remain.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Following on my hon. Friend's point of order, may I say, Sir, that another incident happened this morning against which one feels that the House should try to offer some protection to its Members. This morning we had a Scottish Standing Committee meeting at precisely the same time as in this House the Scottish section of the Report stage of the Transport Bill was being discussed. I believe that the Standing Committee tried to adjourn so that some hon. Members could play their part on Report stage of the Transport Bill, but, under the guidance of the Government, they were not able to get their adjournment. This is putting hon. Members in an intolerable position.
I understand your difficulty, Mr. Speaker. You have to obey the rules of the House. But is there no way of the Chair bringing its influence to bear on the Leader of the House so that this intolerable situation, which is unforgivable in terms of Parliamentary democracy, can be dealt with?

Mr. Speaker: The point of order that the hon. Member has raised was raised twice as a point of order in this morning's debate. This is not a matter for the Chair. This is a matter for the House. Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House.

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us. We are under the Guillotine and there is also a matter of privilege ahead of us. I hope that we will not spend too much time, therefore, on points of order.

Mr. Emery: Further to that point of order. I realise that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot control business, but part of my question to you on a matter of order was whether it would be possible for hon. Members who were doing their business on the Floor of the House— [Laughter.]—to be notified of Divisions


upstairs in Committee. This is not a matter of rearrangement of business, but simply a matter of assisting hon. Members who are trying—[Laughter.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member's phraseology is his own affair.

Mr. Emery: It would be purely to assist hon. Members if such an arrangement were made.

Mr. Speaker: I dealt with that point also twice this morning. It would not be proper to ask the Chair to make extra arrangements so that hon. Members on the Floor of the House should know what is happening in a Committee upstairs. I suggested this morning that Members should keep in touch with their hon. Friends. I understand that there is one of the T.V. annunciators at the centre of the Upper Committee Corridor which can help Committee members a little, but I sincerely appreciate the difficulties under which hon. Members in the House are placed.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Arthur Palmer) addressed to me yesterday a complaint of privilege relating to the text of an article published in the Observer on 26th May, 1968, pages 1 and 2, under the signatures of Laurence Marks and Joanna Slaughter, relating to biological warfare.
In my view, the hon. Gentleman's complaint does raise a matter of Privilege conferring on it precedence over the Orders of the Day.
The practice of the House now requires a Motion to be moved either by the Leader of the House or by the hon. Member who made the complaint and that Motion, of course, is debatable.

The Lord Privy Seal and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, as Leader of the House, in accordance with past practice, to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It would, I think, be in the interests of the whole House if this were now decided with no further debate at this stage.

Mr. Speaker: The question is—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know that before the Motion can be debated it must be put to the House.
The Question is,
That the matter of the complain be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Frequently, when hon. Members challenge any decision of the House—and often important decisions —we are greeted with cries of "Sit down!", "Shut up!", and so on, but we should have more information from the Leader of the House before we submit to the Committee of Privileges something which may be regarded as an attack on the liberties of the Press. The liberties of the Press are very important and I would like from my right hon. Friend more than the bare explanation which we have heard so far.
The argument is that this was in some way a leak from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and that because it was a leak on the subject of biological warfare the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges. But the Sunday Press is full of leaks of all kinds. Why do we single out this particular one? Leaks are customary from the meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Will this case be a precedent? Will the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party suggest now that an article in the Sunday Express, the Observer, or the Sunday Times also constitutes a breach of privilege? Without any explanation, the House is to remit this to the Committee of Privileges, and this is a very dangerous thing.
I read the article in the Observer on Sunday and I thought that it was very good and should be read by every responsible citizen. It was headed, "Biological warfare: Dons named ". I am not interested in the naming of the dons, but I am interested, as we should all be interested, in biological warfare. Having re-read the article, I see no reason, unless I can be convinced otherwise, that this


is a special article which should be considered by the Committee of Privileges.
It may be argued that it deals with confidential information, but, if so, it is open for the Observer to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act and to defend itself in the courts. But here we have a point to consider—

Hon. Members: Get on with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Privilege is a serious matter. We must listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am making my speech as short as possible, but I think that a vital issue is at stake. We are entitled to the fullest possible information about bacteriological warfare and this article discloses nothing which would be of any use to a foreign Power. In fact, most of the information has already been made available in American technical journals which have dealt very fully with this matter. There is a quarterly magazine published by the American Defence Department and I have seen it displayed in Peking.
There is no reason, from the point of view of this country's defence, for this matter to be "hush-hushed" and shoved away to the Committee of Privileges— [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am accustomed to taking unpopular stands. That is what I am here for—.

Hon. Members: Do not take so long about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not advance our proceedings at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am making my case as simple as possible.
I see no reason why the House, with no further information or explanation, should say that this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges before any other Press article. I insist that the question whether we are preparing, by biological warfare, to wipe out this country and the whole human race is a matter for public discussion. If the Leader of the House says that it is not, and can produce any reason why it is not, I will listen respectfully, but I suggest that we should have a further explanation before agreeing to the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is mistaken about the purpose of the House referring a matter to the Committee of Privileges. He suggests that the House should carry out this investigation itself, now. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case to be examined and the House has set up this Select Committee to find out the facts. Until those facts are discovered, it seems that the House will be wasting its time in carrying out a full investigation now.

Mr. David Winnick: It is because I have reservations in my mind about the procedure we are adopting that I am seeking to detain the House. I certainly agree with the earlier remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but I want to look at this matter in a somewhat different light. I hope that the House will appreciate that it is only because I have strong reservations that I am taking up the time of the whole House; otherwise, I would not do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Some hon. Members disagree, but in raising this matter today, the House is basing itself to a large extent on a Resolution passed on 21st April, 1837.
I have looked at that Resolution—it was some time ago, as the House will appreciate—and it appears that it stated that evidence taken by a Select Committee of the House and documents presented to such a Committee which have not been reported to the House ought not to be published by any members of such Committees, or any other person.
It may well be that hon. Members will say the Resolution is one which should continue in practice, but I do not believe so; and it is because I do not believe so that I have certain objections and reservations with regard to the procedure we are now following. If this matter is to go to the Committee of Privileges that Committee should be asked by the House to look again at the Resolution passed in 1837. I believe that in a free society the Press has a duty to probe, to investigate, all our workings, and should not necessarily be asked to limit itself to official reports. What we seem to be saying is that a Select Committee took evidence which was later published in the Observer, but because it was not officially published


by the Committee the Press had no right to publish that information. I disagree.
We have had controversy before on whether or not party meetings should be privileged, and over a period of time we have tended to change our minds. Though technically, and perhaps in theory, party meetings upstairs are protected by parliamentary privilege, in practice that does not appear to be the case any longer. I would hope that even if we are to agree to the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House we will recognise that there are drawbacks in continuing with a Resolution passed so

many years ago. I would rather this matter was debated on the Floor of the House and not sent to the Committee, but, obviously, the House thinks otherwise.

If this matter is to go to the Committee then I would plead with the Committee to look again at the Resolution passed in 1837, and consider whether there is not a strong case for its being rescinded.

Question put, That the matter of the Complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges:—

The House divided: Ayes 398, Noes 14.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[3.54 p.m. 


Abse, Leo
Chapman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Albu, Austen
Chichester-Clark, R.
Ford, Ben


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clegg, Walter
Fortescue, Tim


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Coe, Denis
Foster, Sir John


Alldritt, Walter
Coleman, Donald
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Archer, Peter
Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.



Astor, John
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Costain, A. P.
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Sir Richard


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Cower, Raymond


Barnett, Joel
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Grant, Anthony


Baxter, William
Crouch, David
Grant-Ferris, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Beaney, Alan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Gregory, Arnold


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bence, Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Datkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bessell, Peter
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (LlanelIy)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Binns, John
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gurden, Harold


Black, Sir Cyril
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Btaker, Peter
Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean Paul (somert, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hamling, William


Body, Richard
Delargy, Hugh
Harper, Joseph


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dell, Edmund
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Brian (MaWon)


Boyden, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. 8ir Harwood (Eye)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dickens, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bradley, Tom
Dobson, Ray
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Braine, Bernard
Doig, Peter
Haseldine, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Doughty, Charles
Hattersley, Roy


Brewis, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hazell, Bert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Dunnett, Jack
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Brooks, Edwin
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Henig, Stanley


Brown, Rt. Hn. Ceorge (Belper)
Eadie, Alex
Heseltine, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Eden, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne,W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tte-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, J. E. B.'


Bryan, Paul
Ellis, John
Hilton, W. S.


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quint n


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Ferayhough, E.
Hornby, Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fisher, Nigel
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, Gortlon
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Foley, Maurice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Cary, Sir Robert
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Hoy, James




Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher
Scott, Nicholas


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Sharpies, Richard


Hunt, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hunter, Adam
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sheldon, Robert


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hynd, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Iremonger, T. L.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silvester, Frederick


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Montgomery, Fergus
Skeffington Arthur


Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Moonman, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
More, Jasper
Small, William


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Smith Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith John (London &amp; W'minster)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Snow, Julian


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Stainton, Keith


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart Anthony


Judd, Frank
Murton, Oscar
Stoddart- Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Stonehouse John


Kenyon, Clifford
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Swain, Thomas


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)



Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Swingler, Stephen


Kimball, Marcus
Oakes, Gordon
Symonds, J. B.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Tapsell, Peter


Kirk Peter
O'Malley, Brian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lambton, Viscount
Oram, Albert E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lane David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Temple, John M.


Lawson, George
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Leadbitter, Ted
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dffield)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Parker, John (Dagenham)

Vickers, Dame Joan


Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Longden, Gilbert
Pavitt, Laurence
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Loughlin, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Luard, Evan
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wall, Patrick


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peel, John
Wallace, George


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Walters, Dennis



MacColl, James
Peyton, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacDermot, Niall
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Macdonald, A. H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Pounder, Rafton
Webster, David


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


Maclennan, Robert
Prior, J. M. L.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Randall, Harry
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacPherson, Malcolm
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maddan, Martin
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maginnis, John E.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Richard, Ivor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Woof, Robert


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wright, Esmond


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wylie, N. R.


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Yates, Victor


Marten, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Younger, Hn. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Mawby, Ray
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Whitaker, Ben


Booth, Albert
Lee, John (Reading)
Winnick, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Newens, Stan



Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Park, Trevor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Mrs. Anne Kerr and Mr. Hugh Jenkins.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rose, Paul

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned de-date on Amendment proposed [27th May], on Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.

Which Amendment was, in page 40, line 30, to leave out the word 'any' and insert 'related' instead thereof.

Question again proposed.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The time for the conclusion of the proceedings on Part III of the Bill has passed, so I will now put the Question on Amendment No. 113, which stands first on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). I shall then put forthwith the Question on any other Amendment to Part III which is moved by a member of the Government.

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that it is no fault of the Government, but one-third of the time allocated to Part III of the Bill has been taken up by the previous proceedings. This means that the question of the National Bus Company, which will have borrowing powers of £130 million, will not be debated.

Would it not be possible for the Government to move a new sittings Motion to enable proper discussion of this matter to take place?

Mr. Speaker: I am not without sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but this, again, is a matter for the Government and not for me.

Mr. R. H. Turton: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we are working to a Motion, passed by the House, which says:
… each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that table ".
Part III was not previously brought to a conclusion, the time specified in the third part of the table has been passed, and I therefore submit that this Order of the House is null and void by reason of what has happened.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, the Father of the House, is not unaware that Mr. Speaker had already considered the problem this morning. Earlier this afternoon we gave a certain item precedence over the Orders of the Day. It is my duty now to finish with Part III at the earliest possible moment after four o'clock.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 282.

Division No. 183.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Digby, Simon Wingfietd


Astor, John
Bryan, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Doughty, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Drayson, G. B.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bullus, Sir Eric
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, Gordon
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-uponTyne,N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Bessell, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Biffen, John
Corfleld, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Fortoscue, Tim


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Body, Richard
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan



Bossom, Sir Clive
Currie, G. B. H.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Sir Richard


Braine, Bernard
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Gower, Raymond


Brinton, Sir Titton
d'Avigclor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant, Anthony


Bromley-Daverport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.




Gresham Cooke, R.
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grieve, Percy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Scott, Nicholas


Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Sharpies, Richard


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


 Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Silvester, Frederick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil
Speed, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills Peter (Torrington)
Stodart, Anthony


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hill, J. E. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mott-Raddyffe, Sir Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Hooson, Emlyn
Murton, Oscar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hornby, Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow Cranley
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr Capt L. P. S.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wall, Patrick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walters, Dennis


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peyton, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geofrrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridsdale, Julian



Longden, Gilbert
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Edmund


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald


Altdritt, Walter
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Anderson, Donald
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dickens, James


Archer, Peter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dobson, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Barnes, Michael
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baxter, Wiliam
Coe, Denis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Beaney, Alan
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Bence, Cyril
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ensor, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Blackburn, F.
Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fernyhough, E.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foley, Maurice


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Ednyfed Hudton (Conway)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ford, Ben


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brooks, Edwin
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Beiper)
Delargy, Hugh
Gardner, Tony




Garrett, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Randall, Harry


Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Luard, Evan
Rees, Merlyn


Gregory, Arnold
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reynolds, G. W.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McBritle, Neil
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
MacColl, James
Richard, Ivor


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Macdonald, A. H.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Robinson, Rt, Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hannan, William
Maclerman, Robert
Rose, Paul


Harper, Joseph
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sheldon, Robert


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson Malcolm
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalleu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Heffer, Eric S.
Manuel, Archie
Skeffington, Arthur


Henig, Stanley
Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph


Hilton, W. S.
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Marquand, David
Snow, Julian


Hooley, Frank
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mendelson, J. J.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Howie, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Hoy, James
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Huckfleld, Leslie
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Symonds, J. B.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Taverne, Dick



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moonman, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hunter Adam
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thornton, Ernest


Hynd John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Irvine', Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Jackson Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jeger, Mrs,. Lena (H'b'n&amp; st. P'cras, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy(Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Orme, Stanley
Weitzman, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Witaker, Ben


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitlock, William



Paget, R. T.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Keliey, Richard
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Kenyon, Clifford
Park, Trevor
Williams, Mrs. Shlrtey (Hitchin)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perker, John (Dagenham)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurence
Winnick, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ledger, Ron
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Woof, Robert


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pentland, Norman
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lee, John (Reading)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Yates, Victor


Lestor, Miss Joan
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. John McCann.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)



Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments moved by a member of the Government, or which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Four o'clock.

Clause 27

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO Bus COMPANY AND SCOTTISH GROUP

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 40, line 42, leave out ' (Exchequer loans)' and insert ' (loans out of National Loans Fund)'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 29

TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES BETWEEN RAILWAYS BOARD AND BUS COMPANY OR SCOTTISH GROUP

Amendment made: No. 121, in page 44, line 10, at end insert:
'and in the application of any provision of that Schedule to a transfer affecting the Scottish Group, any reference in that provision to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly.'—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Government now propose to move Amendments Nos. 122 to 138—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, these Amendments are in the names of two hon. Members on the back benches opposite. May we know whether they are selected and whether it is in order for the Government to move them at this late stage under the Guillotine?

Mr. Speaker: The simple answer is that they were selected, and it is in order for the Government to adopt any of the Amendments on the Notice Paper at this stage.

Clause 30

POWER TO EXEMPT CERTAIN BUS SERVICES FROM REQUIREMENT AS TO ROAD SERVICE LICENCES

Amendments made: No. 122, in page 45, line 4, leave out from 'behalf' to 'in' in line 8 and insert 'grant' a permit—
'(a) for the use by the applicant on a route'.

No. 123, in page 45, line 11, leave out from 'passengers' to 'in' in line 12 and insert:

or
(b) for the use by the applicant on a route'.

No. 124, in page 45, line 19, at end insert:
and a road service licence shall not be required for any use of a vehicle authorised by such a permit; and accordingly in subsection (1) of section 134 of the Act of 1960 (which prohibits the use of a vehicle as a stage carriage or express carriage except under a road service licence) at the end there shall be added the words ' or under a permit granted under section 30 of the Transport Act 1968'.

No. 125, in page 45, line 20, leave out 'an exemption' and insert 'a permit'.

No. 126, in Page 45, line 22, leave out from 'facilities' to 'under' in line 25 and insert 'available to meet the reasonable needs of the proposed route and, in the case of a permit'.

No. 127, in page 45, line 30, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 128, in page 45, line 38, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 129, in page 46, line 7, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 130, in page 46, line 9, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 131, in page 46, line 11 leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 132, in page 46, line 15, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 133, in page 46, line 19, leave out 'an exemption' and insert 'a permit'.

No. 134, in page 46, line 23, leave out 'instrument granting the exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 135, in page 46, line 26, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 136, in page 46, line 27, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 137, in page 46, leave out line 30 and insert 'permit'.

No. 138, in page 46, line 31, leave out 'exemption' and insert 'permit'.

No. 139, in page 47, leave out lines 6 and 7.

No. 140, in page 47, line 12, leave out 'exemptions' and insert 'permits'.

No. 141, in page 47, line 15, leave out 'an exemption' and insert 'a permit'.

No. 142, in page 47, line 22, leave out 'an exemption' and insert 'a permit'. —[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 33

GRANTS TOWARDS DUTY CHARGED ON BUS FUEL

Amendments made: No. 143, in page 49, line 28, leave out from '1965' to end of line 38 and insert:
'shall have effect with the substitution for the words from "but" onwards (which specify the maximum amount of any grant under subsection (1) of that section by the Minister to


the operator of a bus service towards defraying customs or excise duties charged on bus fuel) of the words "but the amount of a grant shall not exceed such a sum for every gallon of fuel used or estimated to have been used in operating the bus service during the period to which the grant relates as the Treasury may from time to time approve, being a sum not less than two shillings lower than the rate per gallon of the duty of customs chargeable on hydrocarbon oils imported into the United Kingdom at the date of the use of the fuel, including any addition to that duty by virtue of an order under section 9 of the Finance Act 1961"; and accordingly as from 1st January 1969 the following provisions shall cease to have effect, namely—

(a) the Bus Fuel Grants Act 1966; and
(b) so much of any Act relating to finance passed before or during the same Session as this Act as amends the said section 92 or the said Act of 1966'.

No. 144, in page 50, line 15, leave out 'an exemption' and insert 'a permit'. —[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 34

ASSISTANCE FOR RURAL BUS OR FERRY SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 146, in page 50, line 25, leave out ' council or town ' and insert 'town or district'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Clause 36

GRANTS FOR UNREMUNERATIVE PASSENGER SERVICES

Mr. Keith Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 53, line 16, at end insert—
(c) the individual annual amounts paid for such services in respect of which grants have been made for the first time in the course of the year under review.
Clause 36 is concerned with grants for unremuneratiye passenger services, and the grants are to be decided at the Minister's discretion in the light of representations from British Railways and of various criteria such as social and economic reasons. The Minister may make a grant for a period of up to three years for each individual line. Ultimately, under subsection (5), an onus devolves upon the Railways Board to report each year in terms of the amount of grant received.
The position at the moment is that, under subsection (5)(a), the Railways Board will report each year the total financial position of the lines for which grants have been received, excluding the grant factor, and, secondly, the aggregated amounts of grant received from the Minister of Transport.
It will be evident from the Amendment that I seek to cause the Railways Board not only to report in the aggregate, but to report the individual annual amounts paid for these grants on the first occasion that the grants are made. My main reason is that the local community interested in keeping a service going should be aware of the cost of it. There are other reasons which I commend to the House.
The total cost of these grants is estimated at about £55 million for the year 1969. According to the Steering Group's White Paper, this may diminish to £50 million by 1974. However, figures of these dimensions are very substantial and, without causing the Railways Board any undue work or administrative inconvenience, we should have a breakdown of the constituent parts as and when individual services qualify for grant.
In Committee, fears were expressed that, because there is no ceiling, the grant could be open-ended. One deduced from the Steering Group that the figure for 1969 would be about £55 million, and that was the kind of figure which the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry divulged to the Committee. He did that in response to a challenge from our side when we put down an Amendment restricting the grant to £20 million in any one year, the object being to ascertain what the Ministry had in mind.
We also moved a parallel Amendment which, if accepted, would have achieved the object of curtailing grants to two years instead of three. One can see a consistent theme running through our Amendments arising from the disquiet on our side that, while one wants to deal with the matter adequately, it is not one which should be allowed to get out of hand.
A further cause of concern arose from the contents of Appendix D to the Steering Group's White Paper of September of last year. We have had no reply on this point from the Government. In its


closing paragraphs, Appendix D had something to say about the identification of unremunerative services, and simply commended to the Minister and the Railways Board the undertaking of further work and the preparation of a report in the near future. It is implicit in the whole theory of these grants that unless the identification of unremunerative services is placed on a scientific basis, the whole matter can be ill-founded.
Our disquiet on these issues was, I admit, allayed in large degree by the Government proposal to abandon the deficit-financing of the railways and to go over to a grant-aided system. While hon. Members will find enormous satisfaction in this change of procedure, our disquiet remains within the context I have outlined. Even if it be only on the grounds on which I first commended the Amendment—the provision of information for the local community as to what the maintenance of individual services will cost—I hope that the Government will accept this proposal. Its object is reasonable and I submit that it is couched in terms of such simplicity that the Minister will be overjoyed to accept it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I support the Amendment, which is eminently reasonable and which the hon. Member for Sudbury and Wood-bridge (Mr. Stainton) moved so ably. I welcome the whole of Clause 36 and the idea of getting away from the deficitfinancing of British Railways on to a system which recognises that transport may be part of social and economic planning. It is important, if we are to do this, that communities which are being subsidised and taxpayers as a whole should know where the money is going. That is the object of the Amendment.
This proposal would have a second effect, which would be to require British Railways to be more precise about the figures of loss they make on individual services. I wish particularly to refer to a line in which I have a constituency interest. It is at present under review as the last of the Beeching proposals in Scotland to be decided. It is the Waverley line, which runs through my constituency and goes from Edinburgh to Carlisle.
Many figures of loss have been bandied about from month to month and year to year and the Scottish Office recently commissioned a report from Edinburgh University's social science faculty on the economy of the Borders of Scotland. That report pointed out that great difficulty had been found in coming to grips with the figures of loss about this line because the statistics available to the collaters from British Railways were inadequate, particularly in relation to the cost of running freight trains.
While I welcome this part of the Bill, with its provision for grant-aid to British Railways, it is important that it should carry with it an obligation on British Railways to work out precisely the losses on individual lines so that taxpayers know what they are getting in return for the grants that are given.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how this could be done, since it is estimated that about 80 per cent. of British Railways' costs are joint costs and cannot be individually allocated to individual services?

Mr. Steel: I do not accept that. I have had many discussions with British Railways about the line I mentioned and I assure the hon. Gentleman that attempts are made to allocate revenue from particular services and credit certain sections of the line. It is a difficult exercise and my argument is that an attempt should be made to complete the exercise. If such an attempt is not made I suspect that when decisions are taken to close lines we are merely told that heavy losses are being made and we cannot challenge the figures.

Mr. Peter Bessell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that frequently when closures are proposed British Railways produce a set of figures which cannot be broken down, which means that some decisions are taken on the basis of grossly inaccurate figures?

Mr. Steel: I am sorry to have to agree with my hon. Friend. This does happen and when I have tabled Questions about aspects of revenue—for example, about the line through my constituency—I have been unable to get Answers about certain items being credited to the line, such as


freight trains passing through it. Many items of revenue are not added.
The Government must justify to the taxpayer not only their total annual spending on unremunerative lines, but also their decisions about lines—why, say, the line from A to B should be given a grant compared with the line from Y to Z and how much it would cost to give a grant in the latter case. If we are to take this matter seriously and consider the railway system as part of economic and social planning, we must be in a position to make judgments about individual lines.
The Parliamentary Secretary, a Scottish hon. Member, will know that the Economic Consultative Group which advises on economic planning on the Borders has already advised him to retain the railway service to which I have referred. I am sure that he will take the matter seriously. I want to know the basis of the decisions in each case. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be accepted because it will mean that in future we will have the relevant figures in the reports of British Railways.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on at least being honest about these proposals. I say that because on several occasions all that we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite has been outright opposition to the Bill, and this has fudged the whole issue of the service about which we are now speaking. I am, therefore, pleased that at least one hon. Gentleman opposite has admitted that he is in favour of these provisions.

Mr. Bessell: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting by that that I did not, in Standing Committee, give the same support to this aspect of the Bill, then he is grossly misleading the House.

Mr. Huckfield: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is capable of looking after himself and is able to make his own speech on this matter. However, if I seemed to represent his view as being different from that of his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, I apologise to him. I was more concerned with other hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, while supporting the Transport Act, 1962, to the hilt, have opposed this Bill to the

hilt, but, at the same time, have urged that certain services should be kept open.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I will not give way and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my own speech.
Further to my intervention when the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles was speaking, I still maintain that there will be difficulty in attempting to allocate overheads to particular services. There will be difficulty in ascertaining the precise proportion of direct British Railways' costs or variable costs and the precise proportion of joint or overhead costs. These calculations could be matters of great argument. Many costs cannot directly be attributed to a particular service.

Mr. David Steel: Such as?

Mr. Huckfield: I will willingly give the hon. Gentleman a list of the costs which it would be difficult to directly attribute. For example, there are signalling, terminal and many other overhead costs. One could consider the freight train element and the difficulty of allocating these overheads. I would willingly give a long list, but I will not delay hon. Members.
There is also the difficulty of deciding exactly when a service does not pay its way. For example, it may pay its way during the peak period but not during the off-peak period, yet because it is considered necessary to maintain a viable presentation of the service it might be considered desirable to keep the off-peak service running. We may have a service which, though it does not directly pay its way by itself, is necessary because it constitutes an important feeder service.
I could quote a whole host of examples where, though a particular service may not pay its way over a particular section of line it is necessary to keep it going either to present an overall impression of service or as a feeder line or in some other capacity in this category. We have a whole range of services which would certainly be excluded if the hon. Gentleman is very strict in his definition but which I would deem should be kept open, not on social but on economic grounds.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. I am not saying that


British Railways should in any way restrict themselves and that the Government should restrict themselves in the giving of the grants. On the other side of the balance sheet, the hon. Gentleman must take into account the social costs of closing a line in terms of increased traffic, say, in the City of Edinburgh, in the case of my own line.

Mr. Huckfield: I am trying to make my own speech, and that was the next point I was going to make.
Apart from the difficulty problem of the allocation of overheads—the very difficult definition of what is an unremunerative service, we also have the question of social costs, which are very difficult to quantify. On a certain line there may be a consumer surplus—the consumer may be willing to pay a certain amount more than he is paying at present rather than see the line close down. There is a whole host of social costs— traffic congestion, additional wear and tear, lost time, frustration, accidents, and so on, which should be quantified if we are to do a full cost benefit study in each case.
Therefore, although I appreciate the concern of some hon. Members opposite to see more accurate breakdowns of cost, because of the difficulties of defining these services, because of the very arbitrairy allocations of overhead costs which must be made, and above all because of the very unquantifiable nature of the many social costs with which we must deal, it is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman believes. Accordingly, I urge the rejection of the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I do not think that it would be in order for me now to go into the whole issue of the costing and identification of unremunerative lines. I welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and his support for this part of the Bill. In paragraph 10 of Appendix D of the White Paper, Railway Policy, the report of the Steering Group presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), he and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton)

will see that we outlined and emphasised that there was indeed a future programme of work arising from the recommendations of the consultants and their examinations which would include the identification and costing of unremunerative lines.
We appreciate that further work must be done on the refinement of the identification and costings to enable the Minister to be sure about the services which on broad economic and social grounds should be maintained by means of grants. That work is proceeding. I can say nothing further on that at present, except that those who are expert in the matter are proceeding in the endeavour to improve both the estimating and costing in this respect.
The Amendment proposes that we should require the Railways Board to put into its annual report each year the amount of the individual grants being paid in respect of unremunerative services where those grants are made
for the first time in the course of the year under review.
We have no objection to the Amendment in principle. It is only a question of its mechanics. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would not wish to waste time or have requirements about giving information uselessly or in a way that involves duplication.
On 17th March I gave the assurance in the name of my right hon. Friend that when social grants are approved for unremunerative rail services the amount of the grant in each case will be announced at that time. That will be far in advance of the publication of any annual report in which the amount of that grant could appear, where we are talking about grants being made for the first time. Therefore, it appears to me that on that ground we really meet the hon. Gentleman's point. We fully agree that the public should be thoroughly informed as to the amount of the grant after the identification, the costing, and so on, have taken place. The amount of the grant being given in each case should be announced at the time when my right hon. Friend's decision is announced that it is to be a grant-aided service.
On the other hand, it might be said when we consider subsection 5(b) that the amount of grant payable in respect of each service might be given in the annual report, not, I emphasise, where it is given for the first time but on a continuing basis. Rather than make a requirement which we would regard as duplicating, that the Board must put in its annual report the amount of each grant in each case given for the first time, we might ask that in its annual report it should not be just the aggregate amount of the grants paid but should break it down in respect of every service where a grant is payable. That would not be the grant identified for the first time, but would be from year to year on a continuing basis.
We should like a little further time to consider whether that should be inserted into the Bill as a requirement imposed on the Board. We see no objection to it in principle, and we shall consider it during the further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has been very helpful in dealing with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). He made it clear that the Bill does not exclude the possibility of the information being provided. I hope that in considering this matter further in consultation with the Board he will bear in mind the two arguments put forward by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that when a substantial amount of money is concerned the maximum information should be given, and the importance to the local communities of knowing exactly how much is being contributed towards their services.
We on this side of the House are most grateful for the Minister's helpfulness.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): May I draw the attention of the House to the revised selection of Amendments which Mr. Speaker has had placed in the Lobbies.

Clause 37

GRANTS PENDING ELIMINATION OF SURPLUS TRACK AND SIGNALLING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Stainton: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in page 53, line 37, at end insert:
(5) The report of the Railways Board under the Act of 1962 for any year shall include details of the grant, if any, made under this section.
The theme underlying the Amendment is very similar to that which we discussed on Amendment No. 149, but there is a critical difference. In Amendment No. 149 we were concerned about individual amounts paid for the services the first year they become grant-aided. Under this Amendment, which seeks to insert a further subsection in Clause 37, which deals with grants pending the elimination of surplus track and signals equipment, it is proposed that the Railways Board report for any year should state the amount received under this Clause until that grant expires.
The proposal under Clause 37 is to allocate a maximum sum of £50 million for the elimination of surplus track and signals equipment. We need not get involved this afternoon in arguments about when the decision to eliminate surplus equipment will come to an end. We decided in Committee that this is a continuing process. We are not talking about standby equipment. All I am concerned about is that we should pin down the £50 million which is to be given on a tapering basis over five years.
My reason for suggesting the Amendment is that in the round we should watch this kind of figure. It is a very large figure and elimination of this surplus equipment will play a critical part in the future financial wellbeing of British Railways. It is a complex problem. We can see that from the White Paper issued by the Steering Group dealing with identification of surplus equipment, let alone its removal. We should know that the Railways Board is getting on with the job within the orbit of £50 million and within the time scale postulated in the Bill.
The second reason for suggesting that the figure should be reported annually is the obscurity which surrounds this figure and which became evident in Committee.


The Steering Group referred to £11 million and £60 million. When talking of these kind of details it behoves the Railways Board to report to the public and to this House about the progress being made. The Steering Group said that £60 million might be an under-estimate.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): My right hon. Friend has a great deal of sympathy with the points made for this Amendment by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), but one or two points are perhaps not quite analogous to the previous Amendment.
For instance, on the amount of any grant, Clause 37 says:
The amount of any grant under this section shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the Railways Board, and the amount of the grant for each of the said years shall be so determined before 1st January 1969 in such manner that—

(a) the amount for each year after the first is less than that for the preceding year; and
(b) the aggregate amount of the grants does not exceed £50 million."

The hon. Member was correct in saying that a figure should be given annually, but since the Minister will be so consulting the Railways Board on the question of how much and for what the money will be used, there are certain difficulties in the wording of the Amendment in that details are asked for and the amount of detail is very difficult to determine.
The Railways Board will submit to the Minister proposals for the removal of surplus equipment, which will be in its own interests, but the actual programme may change, even within a year, because of other factors. For instance, with a four-track line the Board may opt to remove two tracks and then it might be found better to hold the process over from one year to another. My right hon. Friend agrees with the spirit of the Amendment and we shall take steps in another place to put forward an Amendment analogous with the Amendment previously moved referring to the conditions of Clause 36(5).

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) will be delighted at the signal success he has had

in this matter. We are concerned that the report, without going into unnecessary detail, should give a true, full and accurate account of the financial position. It is obvious that the information asked for would be vital. We are grateful for the decision which has been made and to the Parliamentary Secretary for the pleasant way in which he dealt with the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 38

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS AS TO BOARDS AND NEW AUTHORITIES

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 157, in page 54, line 18, at end insert:
(6) For section 19(3)(ii) of the Act of 1962 (which provides that the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of any money borrowed by the London Board under that section and that Board's commencing capital debt shall not exceed £200 million or such greater sum not exceeding £270 million as the Minister may from time to time by order specify) there shall be substituted the following:—
'(ii) for the London Board three hundred million pounds.'
The purpose of this Amendment is to raise the limit on the London Board's borrowing powers from its current level of £270 million to £300 million.
Section 19(3)(ii) of the Transport Act, 1962 prescribed an initial limit of £200 million on the Board's aggregate outstanding total of capital debt, the principal of any money borrowed by the Board from the Minister and any temporary borrowing from banks. The limit has twice been raised by Order so that it now stands at the absolute ceiling of £270 million laid down by the 1962 Act. The second Order raising the ceiling to its present limit came into effect on 18th April, 1968.
There are two main reasons why the Amendment is needed. First, the present ceiling of £270 million is likely to be reached some time during 1969, the exact date depending on the net revenue position of the Board, the phasing of particular investment projects and the extent to which the Board may receive infrastructure grants and new bus grants for which provision is being made in Clauses 53 and 32 of the Bill respectively. The


Board's borrowing stood at £231·3 million at 31st December, 1967, comprising £161·8 million of commencing capital debt and £69·5 million of loans from the Minister under section 19 of the 1962 Act. Its borrowing requirements are likely to be some £25 million in 1968, £16 million in 1969 and £16 million in 1970.
Secondly, although the Minister has agreed in principle with the Greater London Council to transfer responsibility for London Transport to them, the Board's borrowing ceiling may be reached before the transfer can be made, or, indeed, before the necessary legislation can be enacted. Unless provision is made for a higher ceiling in the Bill it is possible that the Board's investment programme could be dislocated. The new ceiling does not imply any relaxation of control over the London Transport Board's investment—the control exercised by the Minister through the annual investment reviews and through purchase approval procedures.
The object of the Minister will be to keep down Exchequer loans to the minimum figure consistent with the statutory obligation on the London Board. The new ceiling has been fixed at a level sufficient to meet the Board's needs until responsibility is transferred to the Greater London Council, and, therefore, it includes a margin for contingencies.
I have given the amounts of expected borrowings up to 1970, but if further figures are required I will endeavour to provide them. On our calculations the figure proposed here would leave a margin of £8 million for contingencies. This will be increased to the extent that the Board might receive capital finance through infrastructure grants and new bus grants and other things of that kind. We saw no alternative to the course of bringing forward this Amendment, to secure the increase, on account of the danger of reaching the statutory limit fixed in the 1962 Act in advance of our being able to legislate about London Transport.
I regret that we have not been able to bring forward legislation about the future of the London situation, but to avert the danger it appears that it will be necessary to raise the ceiling for the borrowing powers in this way.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I must protest strongly at the late stage of the Bill which has been chosen to introduce this Amendment. If the Government had decided to have increased the borrowing powers of London Transport by £30 million it would have formed a very major Clause in the Bill, and have been the subject of a good deal of debate and discussion. Not only did they fail to put this in the Bill on Second Reading, but they failed to deal with it in Committee. It is only now that the House has been given any opportunity of discussing this, without any previous background information.
The information giving reasons for this large borrowing and large extra payments by the taxpayers to London Transport came only a few minutes ago. If it had been published when the Bill was published, the Minister would have had to make an explanation on Second Reading. If it had been brought in in Committee the Government would have had to give an explanation. Now, on Report, it has been slipped into the Bill—an Amendment costing £30 million, as if it was of little importance at all.
I remember debating the increasing of borrowing powers previously. The phraseology then used was almost identical to that used by the Minister of State, "We hope that we will not need to use all of this money, we are budgeting generously for what is required, we put this as a safety limit".
Now they have got through all the margins and another £30 million is needed. A significant question, that has to be asked is why should the ratepayers and taxpayers of other parts of the country have to pay to meet the costs of their transport undertakings locally, and then pay a further subsidy to London Transport.

Mr. Archie Manuel: This is quite a common form for ratepayers. They spend money on running Parliament, for example.

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so complacent that his constituents—

Mr. Manuel: I never mentioned my constituents.

Mr. Walker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not mention his constituents. I am doing it for him. His constituents will have to meet the full cost of their bus fares and also help to pay extra taxes to subsidise the bus fares in London.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is only in London that public funds will be used to help public transport services? I was under the impression that this will happen not only in the City, but in whole countries, for example, in Scotland.

Mr. Walker: I know of no other part of the country where the bus losses are subsidised by taxpayers.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I give an example? Glasgow has the "blue trains" running at a loss, and B.E.A. in Scotland do likewise. Under the new arrangements in the Bill public funds will be used.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman has clearly demonstrated that he cannot name any bus service that is currently running at a loss and that loss is being met by the taxpayer.

Mr. Manuel: There is MacBrayne's, upon which £250,000 is spent in subsidising West Coast buses and steamer services. The company is allowed to earn up to 6 per cent. before there is any lowering of the subsidy.

Mr. Walker: The Transport Holding Company operates those buses and shows an overall profit on bus services throughout the country. What we are getting here is a Government decision, which has been in operation for some time, that the deficit on London Transport should be met by the country's taxpayers. I am surprised at hon. Members from Scotland being in favour of that principle. I am even more surprised that the Government should come along upon Report and ask for another £30 million in order to continue doing this.
There has been no explanation of the failure to meet the proposals made by the Select Committee that looked into London Transport some years ago, and made a series of proposals as to how efficiency could be improved.
As far as we know very little progress has been made along these lines, and if

there has been any the Minister did not mention it this afternoon. He could not make any comments about the reason for this increasing deficit of London Transport, or how it was being tackled. All that he said was that the Government were to hand it over to the G.L.C. in the future and in the meantime it would lose another £30 million. After that, they say, they will come along for help to meet the deficit. This is a remarkably complacent way for a Government to act and it shows a typical disregard for public expenditure which has caused so much of the Government's troubles.

Mr. Swingler: I was not in any way speaking about deficit grants to London Transport. We are talking here only about the borrowing power of London Transport, the power to borrow money on which it has to pay interest. We are considering here such things as the extension of the Victoria Line. When I was talking about the £16 million in 1969 and so on, I was referring to the Victoria Line and other investment projects which my right hon. Friend had approved. I was not talking about the revenue deficits which the House would discuss quite separately, if there is any question of subsidies being given.

Mr. Peter Walker: This Government considers that if one is borrowing money one is not spending it. If one borrows £30 million and spends that because one cannot meet the £30 million requirement out of current income, this say the Government, is of no importance—borrowing money is not the same they say. This is why they are so heavily in debt as a Government. We have had no detailed justification for this extra borrowing at all. I urge my hon. Friends to divide against this, and to see that we do not grant £30 million of taxpayers' money in this appallingly complacent way.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am surprised at some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker). He speaks about transport as if he were totally blinded by what happens outside his own close circle. He spoke about public service transport throughout the country and throughout Europe normally making a profit. For one reason or another, public service transport in this country is not making a profit. There are various ways in which public service


transport undertakings in our cities receive assistance. On the Continent, city after city is helped either by the national Government or by the local government because of the difficulties of running public service transport.
When the decision was taken to build the Victoria line—and who, after all, decided that?—it was known that it was bound to lose money. It did not matter whether that money would be recouped from other passengers of the London Transport Authority. Because other passengers not using the Victoria Line are pushed off London Transport due to increased fares and London Transport loses money and has to be subsidised by the local authority, does not exonerate the last Government for having embarked upon a scheme that was bound to lose money. It is not honest to speak in that way.
There are inconsistencies in other matters. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke earlier about the extra cost of coal in Scotland. If this does not involve transport, I do not know what does. There is also the extra cost of gas, and so on. He asks for help from the public authority in one sphere and objects if it comes in another. There is inconsistency in the Opposition's attitude towards public transport. They give the impression that London Transport, because it is not making a profit, is inefficient.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It used to make a profit.

Mr. Atkins: So did public transport everywhere in the world when there were not so many cars. The excessive use of the motor car in our cities is the main reason for the difficulties of public transport today.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is a great coincidence that when this Government come in and undermine confidence generally, it is about that time that public transport starts losing money.

Mr. Atkins: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will consider what is happening in Europe they will find that Britain is getting transport on the cheap. Although there are various ways of hiding it in France, Germany and other European countries, the public contribution through taxation to public service transport in

Europe is a jolly sight more than in this country. If one looks to the great home of private enterprise—America—one finds cities there spending enormous sums of money on city transport. In San Francisco, the figure is 1 billion dollars. It is wrong of hon. Members opposite, when we are asking to borrow money to make London Transport more efficient, to say that it is coming from the taxpayer.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltine rose—

Mr. Atkins: I will give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Worcester speaks differently when he speaks to the G.L.C.—for instance, when he asks for more money for roads and for more money to be spent on improving transport within the City limits. How does he think he will help the G.L.C. if he ties the hands of London Transport and prevents it embarking on new and more efficient methods of running the City's transport?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Does it not raise the slightest doubts in the hon. Gentleman's mind about the commercial talent of this Government that they should have discovered the need for this £30 million in the three weeks which elapsed between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of Report stage?

Mr. Atkins: The biggest impression on my mind is the use by the Opposition of procedural tactics to attack public transport, whereas the only thing they can attack is something which has happened in the procedure of the Bill. They like to keep away from discussing public transport as public transport. They just want to attack the Government all the time. The Opposition ignored transport until 1962, when they introduced a Measure which destroyed public service transport. When we start to put things right they sneer enviously, for no other reason, at the same time hankering after their traditional position of keeping the cream, wherever possible, for private enterprise. They have made absolutely no attempt, like their Tory colleagues in Europe, to settle the problem of public service transport. It is a pity that the present Government, in making the first


serious attempt to settle our transport difficulties for at least a generation, should be hampered and snapped at by people who are not concerned with the need to provide the people with good public transport.

Mr. Bessell: We have just heard a most extraordinary attack upon the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. I found it difficult to relate some of the later comments of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) to the Amendment we are discussing, but I will try to be a little more precise.
When I saw the Amendment on the Notice Paper I was disturbed to find that, once again, we had a late Amendment which involved a considerable amount of money. I accept that we are discussing an increase in the borrowing powers of a public body; that we are not suggesting that we should make a grant or that there should be any money forthcoming from the Treasury which would not ultimately be repaid. But our experience is that when the borrowing powers of public undertakings are increased, they are quickly absorbed and there is not the slightest chance of the money ever coming back to the taxpayer who, in the end, has to provide the capital sum.
It has to come from the Treasury. Because it comes from the Treasury we cannot look at this matter in the light-hearted manner of the Minister in introducing the Amendment. He has explained that he would have preferred this to have been part of a Bill dealing with the future of the London Passenger Transport services. I can understand that it may be necessary to increase the borrowing powers, because of issues like the Victoria Line, but it is imperative that this should be done at the right time and in separate legislation so that the House may have a proper opportunity of debating it.
The Minister gave some interesting figures which I noted down. He said that at the end of 1967 the use which had been made of the borrowing powers of the L.P.T.B. amounted to £231·3 million. He then said that, in 1968, it was estimated that a further £25 million would be needed, plus a further £16 million for 1969 and the same in 1970. But if we take the figures to the end of

1969, that is still a total borrowing requirement by the L.T.B. of only £272·3 million, and its present borrowing capacity is limited to £270 million.
Presumably, legislation will be introduced before the end of 1969 to settle the future of the L.T.B. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have £28 million over and above the requirement which the Minister of State expects will be needed between now and 1969, by which time the future of the L.T.B. should have been decided.
For this reason, it is extraordinary to ask us to approve an increase of this magnitude in its borrowing powers. If the Minister of State was satisfied that the figures of £25 million for 1968 and £16 million for 1969 are accurate, it would have been enough to introduce an Amendment enabling the L.T.B. to increase borrowing by a mere £5 million, and it would still have a £3 million leeway. Why this excessive increase now?

Mr. Swingler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not mean what he just said. He will surely realise that there is general approval in the House for such investment projects as the extension of the London Underground, which is not a one-year project but must be planned and paid for over many years. One would scarcely initiate such a project in the knowledge that, the year after, one would make a drastic cut in the investment programme. One must decide either that one will make a drastic cut in the investment programme, in which case it would be better not to start the project or that one will initiate the project, in which case it would be right to provide, for the finance over the years that it would have to be paid for.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that that would be a valid argument, but for one fact, which the Minister of State himself mentioned. The former Minister entered into an agreement with the Greater London Council about the future of the Metropolitan passenger transport services and the Minister of State expects legislation to settle the future of the L.T.B. If the control of the Board's present services were to remain as at present, he would have a strong case, but neither we nor he can know what the future form will be. Therefore, it is wrong to legislate in advance of knowing how the Board will


be managed in future and, consequently, how the money is likely to be spent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned certain essential projects, but they will not be administered by the present set-up. Therefore, we want to know what that set-up will be before we authorise a sum in excess of the Board's requirements, at least over the next 18 months. If this were merely a small sum to cover the interim between now and the new set-up, we should not worry, but this is so greatly in excess even of the requirements up to the end of 1970.
This is a period of severe credit restrictions. Even now, meetings are taking place between representatives of the clearing houses and the Bank of England about the problems of overdrafts, the effects upon investment in industry and expansion in export trade, and all the consequential difficulties. The Government, the bank and many financial experts accept that, to get Britain out of its present economic difficulties, there must be a severe restriction on borrowing powers. Yet when Government and bank alike are encouraging people and the private sector of industry to restrict borrowing, they are telling the L.T.B. "You can have another £30 million of borrowing powers, even though we have no evidence that you will require anything like as much up to the end of 1970." Even then, the maximum amount required, on the present estimates, is about £288 million. Therefore, I cannot understand why this considerable increase is necessary at this time.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked why the general public in places like Peterborough, Bodmin or Central Ayrshire should be asked to subsidise the travelling public in London. I accept the answer which he was given, that this is not a subsidy or a grant, but his point was that, if the London Transport Board was managing its affairs efficiently enough to produce a profit—as it did in the past—it would not need this facility, which is inevitably subsidised by the taxpayer.
It is not right to allow this measure to be slipped into the Bill. It would be far better for the Government to introduce it alter the Recess, which would be in ample time for the Board's requirements and would enable us to debate it

thoroughly on its merits. Now, we know nothing of the Board's requirements and do not know the real purpose of this increased borrowing power. My party will certainly vote against the Government on this Amendment.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I may not be very popular with my hon. Friends nor afford much comfort to the other side if I point out the real facts behind this Amendment. London's bus transport is the only bus transport in Britain with a general subsidy from the taxpayer. We on our side should recognise this and recall how it began. It was perhaps justifiable at the time, but I can see the need for part of the Amendment.
Perhaps, if the G.L.C.'s borrowing powers and this loan were for the construction of a London Underground, one could go a long way with it, but if this £30 million is to be taken up over an unspecified period and involved in the purchase of buses and such equipment as provides normal passenger transport at preferential Government rates of interest, which Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow and other Corporations could not get on the open market, this continuing preference for the capital city would not be justified.
Social aid is justified in transport only when the nature of the transport, whether passenger or freight, meets a sparse demand from the aged, the very young or the less affluent. Then there are arguments—for instance, in the Scottish Isles —for a form of subsidy.
5.30 p.m.
There can be powerful arguments for a railway system right across Britain. But if there is a combination of 10 million people within 20 or 30 miles of Charing Cross then, apart from the great capital expense of putting in a new form of London underground which will save tremendous overheads as against putting a similar service across the floor of the Metropolis, where there would be a case on which an appeal could be made to the rest of Britain for some form of public borrowing requirement, some of us in the provinces who like to feel knowledgeable on these things will feel that we do not want this subsidy to continue. It crept in, as it were, on stockinged feet and some of us who take a broad line on transport are unhappy about it.
If in the age of the motor car, in one of the greatest cities in the world, we cannot find over a period of time ways and means of getting a right balance between the various forms of transport, whether it be a London bus or my car going down the Strand, if we cannot get forms of discipline in public transport which can be viable over a period of time, we shall never succeed in planning the transport economy of the country. I am not seeking to deny the Minister this Clause and I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will not regard a contribution of this kind as one that seeks to defeat it. It seeks, I hope, only to call attention to the facts.
I hope that in due course, the Minister will be able to assure me and I hope others, perhaps on both sides of the House, that the new London authority, when it comes—and the sooner the better —will take over the whole of its capital requirements and will have no more preferential treatment in terms of capital investment than any other passenger transport service in conurbations such as we have been discussing, when they come into being. But there are as many people within 20 miles of Manchester town hall as there are within 20 miles of Charing Cross and we should keep the balance of the problem before us.
I concede the need for this continuing Clause. I was not upstairs when this was discussed—and in some ways I am glad I was not; but I gather there was a full discussion on this Amendment and I would venture the opinion, and I would have made the same contribution had I been sitting on the other side of the House, that we should be careful to try to find a real balance in relation to overland bus transport and one that is fair to all. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that when the new authority takes over, this and any other preferential borrowing power in relation to Government loans will be withdrawn.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has made a reasoned and forceful appeal to the Minister which he should heed. We do not want provincial cities to feel at a disadvantage compared with the capital, which is something which could flow from this kind of extension

to the Bill which was not thought of at the time of the Committee stage. I reinforce the point made by the spokesman of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell). I do not know what has gone wrong with this Government. I only wish they would give thought to their timing.
On the very day when the banks are told that they cannot increase overdrafts, when people in private business are having to cut down on overdrafts, which will mean that many businesses may have to go out of existence—for make no mistake the help that people get from the banks has been cut to such an extent that many will be unable to stock up and carry on—on the very day when, on the advice of the Government, the Bank of England have had to ask banks to tell owners of private businesses that borrowing has to cease, the Minister comes to the House and asks for a free hand with another £30 million.
I do not want to repeat arguments already well put on the merits. It is one thing to make provision for an extension to the Underground for which the money had to be found so that in the long term the service would be more efficient; but we are asked for £30 million in extra borrowing powers without any specific information on how that is to be spent.

Mr. Swingler: A great deal of this is for the new Victoria Line. The decision on the extension to Brixton was announced by my right hon. Friend.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If I as a private businessman asked a bank for a large sum of money and told the bank how a good part of it was to be spent, the bank would want to know how much was "a good part". I would have to be much more specific. I would ask the Minister whether inter-departmental Cabinet Committees have ceased to exist, because in the days when I was privileged to sit on those as a member of the Cabinet quite a lot of thought was given to timing for the good of the nation. I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench have allowed them to add this extra £30 million on the very day on which many people are being told they cannot continue in business. This kind of action gets government into such disrepute that


we may well meet with some of the problems which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology tells us are round the corner.
This extra £30 million of borrowing power will undermine the confidence of people who have to keep most of the business in this country running. Even at this late hour, I ask the Minister to heed the advice of his hon. Friend and see if he cannot remove this provision from the Bill and come back later, when there is some more specific project on which the Government wish to spend money, and argue the case in the House then.

Mr. James Dempsey: One is tempted to intervene in this debate when one hears so much nonsense being talked on the other side of the House, when it is suggested by the Government that £30 million should be allowed to be borrowed—not granted. I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is not a loan. Perhaps he will tell me where one can get a loan that one does not have to pay back.

Mr. Peter Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the next Clause he will see that the Government are writing off £700 million of loans to British Railways.

Mr. Dempsey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. His argument is, first of all, that it is unfair at three weeks' notice to ask for borrowing powers to the extent of £30 million. But he knows perfectly well that when his party was in government it was nothing unusual to have only three days' notice and then find, not that money was being borrowed to the extent of £30 million, but that over £70 million was going to farmers in food subsidies—not loans but grants from the taxpayers' money. In another case, £81 million was handed back to Surtax payers at a few days' notice. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is part of the administration of the House of Commons. I am amazed at the suggestion that simply because public enterprise in London is told it can borrow up to £30 million that excludes all other types of enterprise from securing loans to develop.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned farm subsidies. Does he realise that those are designed to keep down the price of food in London while

subsidies to London Transport are only for the convenience of London users?

Mr. Dempsey: Of course farming subsidies are ostensibly for the purpose of keeping down prices. They are also for the purpose of giving profits to farmers. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. In Scotland we have a saying, "What's good to gie is good to tak'." If it is good to give the farmers money to keep down food prices it is surely as good to give the London Passenger Transport Board a subsidy to keep fares down. That is a logical attitude.
It is claimed that the only development in the United Kingdom for which money can be borrowed is in London, but that is not true. In Bonnie Scotland we are spending millions of £s on new roads and bridges. If the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) comes to Scotland, he will see a well known firm of private developers from London spending £35 million building private enterprise industrial estates. No one takes exception to that sort of development. The firm is able to get loans from some source in order to provide more work and jobs and there is money available under the Local Employment Act. All the hotels which are being built by the brewers get assistance and subsidies. Hon. Members opposite never complain about the taxpayer subsidising whisky manufacturing. This attitude of theirs today is merely Tory propaganda.
No one seriously suggests, surely, that only Londoners will get the benefit of this £30 million. I advise the hon. Member for Peterborough to be in London tomorrow evening, when he will see 100,000 people from the Midlands who have come for a very important football match. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is making noises on the Front Bench opposite. He brings many parties to London. They use the Victoria Line as well as Londoners.
Let us be fair. This project is an essential part of our transport development. Without means of communication, London would be paralysed and the country with it because we depend for our trade, commercial development, exports, and so on, on a sound, well managed London. That is why the Minister's request is reasonable.
Indeed, £30 million is not a very large maximum to seek as borrowing power. If we want an efficient transport service, it must be efficiently financed and managed. All the provision asks is that we give the Board the right to borrow this money. It is not an unusual request and is consistent with Parliament's policy in the past. I am surprised by the amount of bother going on in the country when all that hon. Members opposite can point to is this issue. It makes nonsense of their arguments. It indicates that they are so bankrupt of ideas that they are getting down to the denigration of an important service without which the whole country would be paralysed.

Mr. Anthony Berry: Once again the Minister of State has treated us disgracefully by using the Bill as a dumping ground for anything about transport which has come to mind in the last few months. Nothing he has said convinces me of the urgency of including this £30 million borrowing power. The Victoria line extension was announced a long time ago. The project will not grind to a halt because this power is not provided in the Bill.
Last night, the hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange about the G.L.C. arrangements. He said that the White Paper would be published by the end of June. Having waited so long, why could he not wait a little longer? Let us see the information in the White Paper, have time to consider it carefully and be able to come to a proper decision on the basis of the facts and figures.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: It is abundantly clear that we are being subjected from the Front Bench opposite, their back bench supporters and their cohorts in the Liberal Party to political motivation and to the stirring up of political hatred in order to create in the country a feeling that the Bill is not a good thing.

Mr. David Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it out of order to talk politics in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I should have thought not, but it is incumbent on hon. Members to

adhere to the Amendment and I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will do so.

Mr. Manuel: Perhaps I may be allowed to follow some of the points made by hon. Members opposite. Today the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) reached a new low. We became accustomed to him in Committee being superseded by the youngsters around him, but today he even got beneath the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), and that is low enough.
When the hon. Gentleman indicated that the Amendment would be harmful to people in the regions and to Scotland and Wales, he spoke as if the Government were giving a grant to the London Passenger Transport Board. Either he is woefully ignorant of the Amendment or he is wilfully trying to be dishonest in arguing that the money will be wasted and will have to be found from the whole of Great Britain. That allegation is quite untrue.
An extension of borrowing powers like this is common form. It has been done on hundreds of occasions. But it is only necessary in this case because of the actions of the last Government, who were supported by the hon. Member who is now making such uncouth noises.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham) rose—

Mr. Manuel: Just a moment. The hon. Gentleman must take his medicine. The railways were a paying proposition until the Conservative Government came to power in 1951. Indeed, they returned a profit until 1953. But because of the excess of hatred of nationalised transport exhibited by the Tory Government, whose administration lasted thirteen years, the situation was created in which more and more borrowing became necessary. No wonder I am disturbed when I hear the sort of propaganda we have been hearing today in this Chamber from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) told us that he was disturbed about these borrowing powers. In Committee, he was so often disturbed that I am amazed he did not have a mental breakdown. He was disturbed on every Amendment he moved. He disturbs me more than he disturbs himself.
May I give a word of warning to my dear old friend the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), who seemed to be giving some joy and comfort to the Opposition Front Bench. He is a very old campaigner and very astute. He was not antagonistic towards the Amendment. He would not oppose it. I hope that this will be a lesson to the hon. Member for Worcester. If he had not made his obnoxious speech, this debate would have ended long ago. If we on this side of the House speak we are filibustering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are the best groaners I have ever heard. If we do not speak we are not supporting our Front Bench. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler: I have attempted to talk about the borrowing powers of the London Transport Board. Perhaps I shall be permitted to recall that in Committee the Government produced an Amendment in the presence of the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and Bod-min (Mr. Bessell) which raised the ceiling on the borrowing powers of the British Transport Docks Board by £40 million. I do not recall any uproar, indignation or protest about increasing the borrowing powers of the Docks Board. There was no Division on that Amendment. If the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) had been present, the story might have been different, but that is a matter between him and the hon. Member for Worcester. There seemed to be universal recognition in Committee that the docks had been so neglected that it was exceedingly important that their capital investment programme should be expanded and, therefore, that it was right in the interests of Hull and Southampton as well as of Tilbury and Merseyside to increase the borrowing powers of those responsible for the docks and harbours.
I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are suggesting that the capital investment of London Transport should be cut. I have not heard that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), on behalf of people outside London, some of whom I represent, I am more than unhappy about the payment of subsidies to London Transport. I am more than unhappy about the deterioration which has come about in public transport in London during

the last 10 years. Do not take it from me. Let the hon. Member for Peterborough read the annual reports of the London Transport Board over the last 10 years and study the steady deterioration of public transport in London and in the financial position of the Board.
Is the conclusion which we should draw from what hon. Members opposite say that the investment programme should be smaller or bigger? The hon. Member for Bodmin suggested that we should not do anything about the statutory ceiling on the borrowing powers of the London Transport Board. Apparently, the Board should spend the money illegally. He referred to the fact that the Board had already borrowed £270 million, would require another £25 million and, in the following two years, £16 million per annum. He suggested that this should be done without raising the statutory ceiling but it would have to be raised before the end of 1969 for the borrowing to be lawful.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I said that, on the figures which he gave, for this year there was a requirement of £25 million and a further requirement of £16 million for next year, which would bring the borrowings of the London Transport Board to £272·3 million. At present, the ceiling is £270 million. If the Board were given further borrowing powers, that would carry it through to the end of 1969, by which time there would have been a reorganisation of the Board and the hon. Gentleman could legitimately present a new Bill to increase its borrowing powers.

Mr. Swingler: That is not my recollection of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but if that is what he said I accept it and withdraw what I said.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be a wise policy to go up to the limit. He knows that we cannot introduce legislation about London until the next Parliamentary Session. It must take its place in the legislative programme. We would go into 1969, when the London Transport Board, if it was to carry out its capital projects, would be going up to the statutory limit fixed by the 1962 Act, before Parliament was able to approve an extension of its borrowing powers. That means that should Parliament not accept such legislation or should it alter it, then at the shortest possible notice the


London Transport Board would be compelled to change all its projects. That cannot be done in respect of a project like the extension of the Victoria Line to Brixton.

Mr. Peter Walker: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why he came to the Dispatch Box eight weeks ago and asked for borrowing powers up to £270 million? He stated that that would last until mid-1969. If that is still true, surely the right thing to do was, not to introduce this Amendment during a guillotined Report stage, but to introduce, as he has done before, a one-Clause borrowing powers Bill before mid-1969.

Mr. Swingler: I was coming to that point. We went to the limit of £270 million permitted by the 1962 Act, but in the knowledge that if we did not have a Bill about London and its public transport in this Session exceptional measures would have to be taken.
Hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members like the hon. Member for South-gate (Mr. Berry), will be aware that last year negotiations were going on between my right hon. Friend's predecessor and the Greater London Council. They will also be aware that political changes took place in London at that time. It was not until right at the end of the year that agreement was reached between my right hon. Friend's predecessor and the G.L.C. about the future organisation of London transport, including the assurance that my right hon. Friend would put London Transport in a financially viable state before it was transferred to the G.L.C. But there still seemed at that time the possibility that a Bill about London would be introduced in this Parliamentary Session.
I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester that it would have been much more desirable to have included this point, which is connected with the discussion of the future investment programme of London Transport and its financial viability, in a Bill about the future of London Transport. That has not yet proved possible, but it will be

shortly. I hope that before the summer adjournment the House will perhaps have a debate in which all the issues which hon. Members wish to raise about the organisation of London Transport may be heard.

6.0 p.m.

The situation here and now is an urgent one from this point of view, that if London Transport is to have an assurance of continuity in planning its capital investment programme in the next two or three years, and if its borrowing limit will have been reached by 1969, it is urgent that the ceiling on its borrowing powers should be lifted now.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister has not answered my point. The point is that during the last eight weeks the Government have decided they wanted to lift the limit to £300 million, but only eight weeks ago the Minister of State himself asked for greater borrowing powers up to £270 million which, he said, would last till mid-1969. Why has he decided to do this by an Amendment on the guillotined Report stage of this Bill, rather than by means of a borrowing powers Bill which he could introduce any time between now and 1969?

Mr. Swingler: We are in this Bill dealing with financial provisions affecting all the nationalised transport undertakings. It would have been rather peculiar on our part if, in a Bill dealing with all these transport undertakings and seeking provisions for them all, we did not provide also for London Transport. We naturally brought forward this proposal here and it is an urgent proposal for the reasons I have given. It is not on account of any increase in the Board's investment programme but on account of maintaining the continuity of the investment programme that it is an urgent proposal, and I trust that the Amendment will now be approved by the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 236.

Division No. 184.]
AYES
[6.2 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Altai, Austen
Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Archer, Peter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Alldritt, Walter
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnes, Michael




Barnett, Joel
Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maxwell, Robert


Baxter, William
Gregory, Arnold
Mayhew, Christopher


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bence, Cyril
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MilIan, Bruce


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hazel I, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Heing, Stanley
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom

Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hooley, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howarth, Harry (Weillingborough)
Ogden' Eric


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Botton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Howelt, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howie, W.
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Paget, R T.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Palmer Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara,
Hynd, John
Pannell, nt. Hn. Charles


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Colin (B 'h' se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n'&amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn Fred


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Thomes (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rankin, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Roebuck, Roy



Dickens, James
Listor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Driberg Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. H.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunnett Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryan, John


Dunwoodv Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp;C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sherdon, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Laurd, Even
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English Michael
MacColl, James
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Snow, Julian


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Raymond (IIkeston)
Mactennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskiil, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swingler, Stephen


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Symonds, J. B.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Fowler, Gerry
Malialieu,J.P. W.(Hudder'sfield, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Manuel, Archie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Urwin, T. W.




Varley, Eric G.
Whitaker, Ben
Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Yates, Victor


Wallace, George
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George (Edinburgh,E.)
Mr. Neil McBride and Mr. Charles Grey.


Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)



Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Aish)
Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford&amp;Stone)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil


Astor, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Murton, Oscar


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bc[...]som, Sir Clive
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Csborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Brewis, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hay, John
pardoe, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt.Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Health, Rt.Hn. Edward
Pell,John


Bryan, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Buchanan-Smith.Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hiley Joseph
Pink, R.Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder,Rafton


Burden, F.A.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon
Holland, Philip
price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson,Emlyn
Prior, J.M.L.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
pym, Francis



Carry Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Hunt,John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, F.V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A.P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Craddock Sir Beresford (Spelthorn)
Jenkin,Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crosathwaite-Eyre Sir Oliver
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch David
Jones, Arthur (Nothants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crowder F.P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Cunningham,Sir Knox
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Currie G.B.H.
Kerchaw,Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dalkeith Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Scott, Nicholas


Dance Jame
King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lambton, Viscount
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
stainton, Keith


[...]son, G. B.
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stodart, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapselt, Peter


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Maciean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Teeling, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmihan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foster, Sir John
Maglnnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.




Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wells, John (Maldstone)
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wright, Esmond


Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wylie, N. R.


Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Younger, Hn. George


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)



Watt, Patrick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walters, Dennis
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Hector Munro.


Weatherill, Bernard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Webster, David
Woodnutt, Mark

Clause 39

ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PROVISIONS AS TO RAILWAYS BOARD

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 158, in page 55, to leave out line 5 and insert:

'to a figure which corresponds at least to the total sum invested in new capital by the Board in the five years commencing 1st January 1964'.
This is a very important Amendment which involves a considerable sum of public money. The amount involved is £1,200 million. The capital debt of the British Railways Board is reduced from £1,500 million to £300 million. Even in these days when millions do not count for a great deal, this is a substantial sum.
It could be argued that this is not the amount which we are considering, and that the amount by which we are reducing the debt totals only £557 million. But this disregards the fact that in 1962 it was envisaged that at some time the Minister might direct that the whole or part of the suspended debt of £705 million now to be written off should carry interest and be repayable. The figure of £300 million to which the capital debt is to be written down is ludicrous, and all the arguments which have been put forward to support it are foolish.
The basic reason the Government seek to reduce the amount is that they hope, by an accountancy exercise, to eliminate the deficit of British Railways which has caused such alarm and which is now over £150 million per annum. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) put this correctly in a debate of 26th June last, when he said:
The railwaymen would be jubilant if they managed a substantial reduction in the deficit. It would give them greater heart and give greater impetus to the success of British Railways than anything else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 135.]
He was saying, "Let us eliminate the deficit, and this would be an enormous boost for those working with British

Railways." We agree with this. The deficit is something which causes a greater degree of alarm than anything else in British Railways and its staff.
On the other hand, there are limits to which one can go. To go to the extent of writing down the capital assets of British Railways to a figure of £300 million is to make an absurdity of accounting procedures. The amount of money which has recently been expended on capital works by British Railways gives us some idea that the figure of £300 million is ludicrous. The amount spent by British Railways on capital works over the last ten-year period was £1,200 million. That takes no account of the historical assets or of properties and land acquired over the years. It is just the amount spent on capital in the last ten years.
To draw attention to this absurdity, we have suggested in our Amendment that the figure should be the amount spent on capital equipment over the five years commencing with 1964. This works out to a figure of between £500 million and £600 million. It might be argued that in choosing this figure we are not choosing a precise amount of money, since the amount spent on capital by British Railways tends to vary with the Government's financial restrictions.
We on this side of the House have consistently said that, while the Government have been prepared to spend millions on write-offs, capital loans and subsidies for British Railways, they have failed miserably in the one direction which is vital to the future prosperity of British Railways. Many hon. Members on this side of the House look to the future of British Railways with optimism, but the one area where they have failed—

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman appears to be enjoying himself. Before he goes any further would he care to tell the House how much the previous Conservative Administration wrote down the accumulated debt at the end of 1962?

Mr. Taylor: I am coming to that point and I shall deal with it in great detail. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the amount of suspended debt of about £700 million was not written off. It was put in suspended debt, and it was made quite clear at the time that a substantial amount of this at a later stage could bear interest and could be paid back.
We are considering whether £300 million is a fair and reasonable amount to take into account for the capital debt of British Railways. How can a figure of £300 million be justified in relation to the assets of British Railways? The National Plan contained interesting figures, although now unfortunately it has become one of the Government's massive contributions to the wastepaper drive. At the time the National Plan was published it was pointed out that it was essential that we should have capital spending in British Railways of around £135 million per year up to 1969.
The allocation for 1966 was £120 million, and it was reduced in July, 1966, by £14 million, so we see a substantial fall in relation to this estimate. Then we had the 1967 estimate of capital spending, which would be taken into account in our suggestions in the amendment. That came to a figure of £104 million. Taking into account the effects of inflation, that is a substantial reduction. More recently, we had the Government's announcement that the 1968 allocation was being reduced by £5 million to about £100 million, and then we have a further savage reduction of £11 million in the allocation for 1969.
It is a tragedy for British Railways that the Government have made such savage cuts in the necessary and important investment in areas which could help the railways to overcome their deficit in the proper way by providing an efficient service, instead of by a squalid accountancy exercise of which this Clause is a part.
The figure of £300 million is ludicrous. However, let us assume that it can be justified on the Government's arguments. They do not pretend that £300 million is realistic in relation to the assets. They say that, if this figure is brought in, it may be possible to eliminate the deficit by accountancy means. In the January edition of "Modern Railways", which

I know many hon. Gentlemen opposite read with great interest, that splendid gentleman, Mr. Gerard Fiennes, explained the position clearly. He said in his article:
They have shuffled the deficit under the rug.
That is precisely what the Government are endeavouring to do by this Clause. They have not eliminated the deficit in the way in which it should have been done, by providing long-term means for British Railways to overcome their problems. First, they have slashed investment. Second, they have taken away a major part of the very important freight-liner services from British Railways, on which so much depends.

Mr. Stainton: Would my hon. Friend care to consider a third action which has been precipitated by the Government, or will be on Thursday—the increase in fares and freight rates?

Mr. Taylor: I should like to deal with that in detail, but it would be out of order. However, my hon. Friend is quite right.
When one considers the slashing of investment and taking away from British Railways the major share in the freight-liner services, one sees how the Government have undermined the morale, profitability and efficiency of the railways.
In those circumstances, we feel strongly that it is no answer to the problem of deficits to say that they can be overcome by the simple accountancy procedure of writing down the capital debt to a ludicrous figure. It would not be possible for any private concern to eliminate a deficit by this means. However many losses and foolish decisions it made, no business could be run on its own rules of accountancy. The only argument to support the figure of £300 million is that, if it is applied by accountancy mechanisms, it will be possible to eliminate the deficit.
In the Blue Paper on Railway Policy, there is a clear statement of how the Government arrived at their sums. It was done on the basis of certain assumptions which are contained in Appendix G.1, on page 62. The assumptions were that total output would expand by 3 per cent. per annum, that industrial production would expand by 3·3 per cent. per annum,


and that wages would rise by 3 per cent. per annum. In addition, it said that there would be no changes in the prices paid by the Board for materials and services.
When one considers the figure which the Government are trying to justify on the basis of these general assumptions— and there are many more—bearing in mind the Government's economic record and achievements, if they can be called that, it is clear that those assumptions have been blown sky high by the series of financial crises that we have had.
We have, therefore, suggested an alternative. We consider that the best answer would be for the assets employed by the railways to be fairly, squarely and appropriately represented in their accounts. This is the argument that we have put forward in relation to the National Freight Corporation, and it is the argument that we put forward in Committee in relation to the railways. However, we suggest something just a little different in this Amendment, and we do it in an endeavour to draw the Government's, the House's and the country's attention to the fact that the figure of £300 million is ludicrous. We have suggested that the figure should be made more appropriate to the amount spent by the railways in a five-year period.
Is it really asking too much that the capital debt should be fixed at the capital spending for a five-year period? Everyone knows that even our figure would be ridiculously inadequate when compared with the real value of the assets of the railways, but it is a step in the right direction, it affords the Government an opportunity to explain their position and, I hope, to change it so that the accounts of the railways will not be altered by a squalid accountancy exercise to produce a surplus where there is none. It is a nonsensical position which cannot be justified, and I hope that it will be rejected decisively.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has referred to the situation as nonsensical. However, it would be far more appropriate to apply that description to British Railways' deficit financing hitherto. If anything has been sheer nonsense, it is the method adopted in the past whereby the grant for one year has been used to pay off the interest on

the debts of the year before. That is a process which has gone on under successive Governments, and that is the kind of procedure that we are chosing to bring to an end. Yet, because we are chosing to bring to an end this Alice in Wonderland system, we are told that it is highly dangerous and nonsensical. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he looks at the system of financing which has been operated in the past. He will find that the financial status being given to British Railways now is far more appropriate and sensible than they have had hitherto.
How, then, do we arrive at a position where we have to try to estimate the realistic value of the assets? One matter which causes the Amendment to be brought before the House is that, in the past, compensation and interest has had to be paid on British Transport Commission stock irrespective of whether British Railways have made a profit or a loss. In many years in which the railways did not make a profit, they should not have been obliged to pay interest on the stock.
Apart from that, if the hon. Gentleman seriously accuses the Government of putting forward economic proposals for British Railways which will not stand up to detailed examination, I suggest that he looks at the £15,000 million modernisation plan for the railways which was put forward by his Government in 1955. That was the modernisation plan which was taken by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and refuted point by point. If he accuses the Government of putting forward plans which do not hold water, he should look at plans which were produced by his own Government—

Mr. Peter Mahon: I think that my hon. Friend has made a slight slip of the tongue. I think that he meant to say £1,500 million.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, I meant £1,500 million.
The facts and figures brought to light by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries still give us the same kind of answer. The investment proposals put forward by the Railways Board in the past do not stand up to the kind of examination which hon. Members on


both sides of the House would like to see. Let us put an end to this Alice-in-Wonderland argument because it will not hold water. The hon. Gentleman should look at the background to the current situation and particularly at the background from 1955 onwards—most of which occurred under Conservative Administrations.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have noticed that when hon. Gentlemen opposite want to refer to history, particularly regarding the railways, they pick their authorities carefully. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) was referring to the report on modernisation produced by Sir Brian Robertson, as he then was. Earlier in the debate we had Sir Brian Robertson being held up as a greater authority than Lord Beeching, but on the question of modernisation he certainly was not. I notice that though hon. Gentlemen opposite are keen to condemn Lord Beeching's Report on many issues when it comes to modernisation and getting rid of the deficit, the subject is not mentioned. The whole point of the Beeching Report was to find a pattern for the railways which was suitable for modern conditions, and it was believed that the ultimate result of the Report would be to produce a railway system which would pay its way. The temporary arrangements which have been condemned by some hon. Gentlemen opposite were those arrangements made when certain substantial sums of money were put into the expense account on the expectation that eventually they would be paid off. It is a remarkable thing that during the few years of Lord Beeching's administration, the railway deficit fell; it was only when he left that it began to go up, and it has gone up ever since.
I am rather surprised at the figure of £300 million. I do not know exactly how it has been arrived at, except that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) talked about shovelling things under the carpet. That seems one way of dealing with a deficit, but until one has set about getting a pattern of railway services in this country that meets current needs, there will always be a deficit. Hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently expect that. They do not pattern their railways

after what is needed but according to what decision is made by some tycoon in the Ministry of Transport as to what railway facilities will be required by the public, regardless of whether or not that is what is required. If one proceeds on that basis one will always be wrong, there will always be a deficit and we shall get into serious trouble.
I support the Amendment because it seems that the figure of £300 million is quite unrealistic. I do not know that the figure we have suggested is any more realistic, but at any rate it is a move in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will give further information about why this figure was published in the Blue Book, and how it arose. We should consider whether some other figure might not be more appropriate.

Mr. J. T. Price: I rise only because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) ducked the question I put to him during his speech. I asked him to inform the House how much of the accumulated deficit of British Railways had been written off or put into cold storage by previous Conservative Governments. He said, "I will be coming to that later", but he never did come to it. This is one of the oldest gimmicks in the House, and I protest about it. It is not only hon. Gentlemen opposite who are guilty of this but, I am sorry to say, some of my hon. Friends, too.
If one gets a question which one cannot answer, instead of standing up honourably and saying, "I am very sorry; I have not the figures but will look them up and send the hon. Member a letter", they say, "I am coming to that later", but they never do. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman need not work himself into a state of synthetic indignation, because I am familiar with that and I can do that sort of thing, too.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson rose—

Mr. Price: I will not give way. I want to address the House briefly. Under the 1962 Act—which was passed by a Conservative Administration—and under the 1957 Act very large sums were written off for special reasons. They amounted in aggregate to about £750 million. [Interruption.] If I have got a nought in the wrong place, I apologise. I know


some people who put a nought on the other end and speak of thousands of millions instead of hundreds of millions, which is a bit much. I had the pleasure of serving; on the Committee upstairs on the last Bill and the one before that, when all these transactions were fully explored and the reasons fully ventilated.
The Member for Cathcart gets a bit bumptious on some occasions, but he should not be allowed to get away with wild statements simply because he lives in ignorance of the history of the railways. He has not even taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the facts of the situation. British Railways were, in fact, breaking even by about 1952 and it was only because later economic conditions produced deficits which were never funded that we had interest upon interest upon compound interest, with an astronomical spiralling of the debt.
When we investigated this we found that three-quarters of the debt was represented by unpaid interest. My right hon. Friends are far better advised than hon. Gentlemen opposite. If hon. Gentlemen opposite make wild statements, they must expect to be challenged by people who know the facts. I hope some of the hon. Member for Cathcart's more responsible colleagues will have the decency to admit that when we are seeking to put the finances of British Railways on a sounder footing and to make them viable in the future, we ought to have his support and not his disdain and cheap sarcasm, based on a complete misreading of the history of the railways.

Mr. Stainton: I anticipated this debate in Committee and there are a few points to explore further and ventilate more fully. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) but he forgot to mention the heavy burden on the railways in terms of the capital deficit arising from an adjustment of book values amounting to a £350 million deficiency. It is an accumulation of all these factors which has led to the sorry state of British Railways plus, of course, their operating inefficiency.
The important point to bear in mind is that in proposing to write down the capital of British Railways to £300 million we are valuing our railway service and all that it implies in terms of land,

buildings and facilities generally. I will give the figures of capital investment in fixed assets by British Railways. I have only the 1966 accounts. This is new money going into British Railways. This has nothing to do with interest upon interest upon compound interest to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton referred or with the £305 million deficit in book values.
Let us trace our steps back a few short years and see precisely what the figures show. In 1966 new money coming in to British Railways amounted to £1068 million. In 1965 it totalled £121·1 million and in 1964 it totalled £108 million. We have, therefore, already exceeded the figure of £300 million. We are going to write British Rail down in terms of how it stands in the books of the populace of this country by a lesser figure than the new money put in in the last three years. Whether it is right or wrong for this to be done is a matter of profound importance which must cause us to reflect on how this state of affairs has come about and whether we have things right now for the future.
It is with this motive that my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and I tabled this proposal. It would have the effect of causing the Railways Board, when new capital is created, to ensure that it is not less than the new money invested in British Rail in the last five years. There is nothing sacrosanct about the figure five, just as I stressed that there is nothing god-given about the figure three. However, it would be healthier to think that we could keep our heads above water over the previous five years in terms of new investment compared with the last three years. The Minister must address himself to this question because I am sure that that is how it will be seen by the man in the street.
I must now weary the House by becoming rather more technical, since the question of the future capital structure of British Rail will have a great deal to do with its viability and to the process whereby it is going to sustain future capital. One of the curiosities of accounting techniques is depreciation. The higher one's capital, the larger the depreciation; and one need only glance at the capital accounts of British Rail to see that the depreciation fund has gone a


long way in the past towards meeting capital investment, and that, in turn, has got swept into the deficit.
What are the future financing requirements of British Rail to be in relation to the £300 million postulated in the Bill? How will this be achieved? It is to be achieved, in part, by the cash flow under the heading "depreciation", and that will be substantially less than it has been in the past. It may be £35 million compared with £65 million—so that already one is the loser there by £30 million. There are realisations of surplus assets and presumably that is not something that can go on indefinitely. Sales proceeds fluctuate, and that figure reached £33½ million in 1966.
I suspect that, with the grant we have approved today for the liquidation of surplus track and signalling equipment—this must be achieved in the next five years— a lot of the extra surpluses will be got quickly out of the system. What will plug that gap in terms of the financing of British Rail's capital requirements? Over and above that, what are the borrowing requirements to be? We could arrive at the curious position, in terms of writing down the capital now to £300 million— with the fall in the depreciation fund and the fall in the realisation from surplus assets each year—that British Rail will be precipitated into a borrowing situation, and the extra borrowing could be vastly more than the capital which we are now leaving in the books of British Rail.
I would go so far as to hazard, considering the figures exchanged in Committee upstairs, that within the next five years British Rail will have new borrowings of at least £250 million. That is a severe criticism of the writing down of the present capital employed in British Rail to the mere figure of £300 million.
While we appreciate that it may not be possible for the Government to act on an Amendment of this description— there is no finite logic in these things— I hope that the Minister will take note of the points that have been made and will give a considered reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Sudbury and Wood-

bridge (Mr. Stainton) has obviously studied this subject extremely thoroughly. Hon. Members will be grateful to him for the figures he gave, which amply support the Amendment. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), but on this occasion he has advanced arguments which deserve our serious consideration.
If we are to reorganise the finances of British Rail—and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I do not quarrel with that principle—then we should do it on the basis of objective criteria. Simply to pick the figure of £300 million out of thin air—I say that because I am not aware of any justification of the figure by the Minister—is not good enough and is an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Cathcart has suggested that the commencing capital debt should be calculated in accordance with certain rules which at least bear some relationship to the value of the assets employed by British Rail. While his solution may not be perfect, it would at least be a better proposal than the Government's. Merely to wipe out the deficit on paper might result in all sorts of difficulty and we should not lend ourselves to this exercise.
The value of the assets of British Rail, as shown in its books, should bear some relationship to the reality of the situation, so that when we look at the accounts we should be able to judge, from the figures provided against this commencing capital debt, whether an enterprise of British Rail has been successful in any one year. If we were to sweep away this vast amount of capital debt, nobody looking at the accounts could form such a judgment.
Naturally, we all want British Rail to be successful. I hope that ultimately it will make a profit. However, we do not want to do this by cheating or by fiddling the books—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— fiddling them honestly, so to speak. I am all in favour of doing the things which the hon. Member for Cathcart recommends—of investing in equipment which will enable British Rail to offer a service to the travelling public and at the same time make a profit.
I do not know what is under consideration in the Ministry regarding the electrification of the line from Manchester to


Glasgow. The information I have received suggests that this would be a very successful investment indeed. I would be out of order to go into that, but it is the sort of project which the Minister should be considering, rather than furtive book-keeping—

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee. He will recall, however, that there was for many months an investigation by reputable consultants into the whole system of the railways, under a Joint Steering Group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) who was then the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. This group reported last autumn and its findings are in a Blue Book entitled "Railway Policy." That document went into all these matters in great detail. It was as a result of the recommendations both of the consultants and of the Steering Group that this figure was arrived at.

Mr. Lubbock: I understand that the consultants did not recommend any particular figure and did not mention £300 million, although we are now discussing whether or not the figure should be £300 million or some other amount.

Mr. Swingler: I spoke of a course of action.

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister should not draw my attention to a report which does not contain the information.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman surely will appreciate that this is based on a policy decision. The policy decision which he is discussing now is whether to end the deficit, and if so whether at the end of this year, next year, or when, and of course the calculation results from that policy decision.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister has made some calculations, I certainly hope that he will disclose them to the House. This is the whole basis of the argument, and the Minister could have saved a great deal of the time of the House if at the beginning he had shown us how this £300 million is calculated. Let him start with the report of the consultants and justify the figure of £300 million on the basis of objective criteria. If he can do that it will make a lot of difference to my

thinking, but so far I can see nothing, and have heard nothing in this debate from the other side of the House, which can satisfy me that any consideration has been given to objective means of deciding what the commencing capital debt should be.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that among the many assumptions on which the figures were based was the admission that there would be no major difficulty in securing an allocation of investment for the projects of British Railways, but despite that there have been major cuts.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is just the kind of thing I was referring to. I absolutely agree that instead of this book-keeping transaction greater attention should be given by British Railways and by the Minister to means of making British Railways more profitable, and that we do not have to go through these technical exercises. If the Minister can say that he is doing all these things and show me that the figure of £300 million has been arrived at from the consultants' report this will make a lot of difference to my thinking. But nothing I have heard from that side of the House in the course of this debate has convinced me that the Minister is right.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: When I have intervened on one or two of the other Amendments and Clauses in this debate there has been some sort of noise from the Government benches, and I understand that. I think that it is because they know that transport is not a subject I have followed in the House in the years I have been here. It is perfectly true. If hon. Gentlemen cast their minds back to where I have made observations, they will acknowledge that they have not been on the technical jargon of anything to do with transport, but on points where I think that Governmental procedure is involved. Having been a member of a Government for 5½ years, I have some idea of how the thing works. I have criticised the Government when they have deviated from good procedure and where general business principles are concerned, because certain principles apply whether it is a matter of transport, selling paint, which I do,


or anything else. Whatever it is, certain business principles apply.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Is this a resume of the hon. Gentleman's career?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is introducing his argument.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is a very excellent loco driver, had confined all his remarks to driving trains they would have been much more relevant than some of the comments he made on the business aspect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the Amendment, I think.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Having justified my intervention on this occasion, I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). To write the figure down for no good reason to £300 million without really justifying it and without following some formula is not good business. It will not allow anybody to have confidence in any of the accounts submitted by this section of Government trading in the future. If, as the Minister of State said, he is following the consultants' recommended course of action, then he ought to spell out how tihe formula recommended by the consultants arrives at this figure. Does it arrive at exactly £300 million? In 1962 about £1,200 million was spent and between £500 million and £600 million have been spent over the past five years. Did the consultants' recommendations say any of that ought to be taken into account?
I was very interested in the general argument put by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). He put the old argument which dates back a good many years—[An HON. MEMBER: "Perfectly sound."]—quite right. The way the railways had to battle on for many years past put it in the position where it was necessary to write down its capital, for otherwise its interest costs and overheads were such that they could not hope to recoup them by day-to-day business. But I do not think the hon. Member for Westhoughton would argue that that situation has arisen since 1964. We were aware of the problems he de-

scribed so vividly before 1964, and one would have thought that the considerable money spent since 1964 could be considered to have been well spent. It ought to be considered to be an asset which could be taken into account. Is it suggested that all the problems which dated back to the days when the railways had to face the beginning of the new road transport system and the introduction of the motor car and so on were still in existence in 1964?

Mr. J. T. Price: If the hon. Gentleman wants to address rhetorical questions to me and wants me to give a worth-while answer we shall be here all night. I do not want to be drawn on this, but he is being most provocative. Perhaps I could say to the hon. Gentleman without malice that when he says that nobody will have any confidence in the railway accounts in the future he is surely forgetting that we have a Comptroller and Auditor-General, who will investigate them most thoroughly. It is a slight on our Government machinery that he should say that these accounts would not be acceptable to anybody with common sense.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the auditors had instructions to ignore all money except £300 million, they would be doing their job. What I am trying to get the Minister of State to do is to give sound instructions to the auditors when they some to it. But the hon. Member ought not to attack me. I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I was not attacking him; I was going along the road with him.

Mr. Manuel: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has studied the Blue Paper.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: No.

Mr. Manuel: The Steering Group presided over by my hon. Friend who was Parliamentary Secretary, but has now moved to another Department, reported in November, 1967. The White Paper contained a review of long-term forecasts, the effect of grants, the Board's future financial structure, and then the recommendations. There is another section dealing completely with finance. If the hon. Gentleman studied that he would understand parts of the Bill he is now questioning.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Minister said the same thing another way a moment ago. He said that it had all been explained in Committee, and he suggested that if we had read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings we should have had the answer. I have not read all the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, any more than I have read the Blue Book, but my hon. Friemds have assured me they have not had this explanation. [AN HON. MEMBER:"It is here."] It looks as though the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is trying to lead the House astray. He is trying to give the explanation that all the answers are in the Blue Book. People who have read the Blue Book tell me that that is not so.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister said that he gave all these explanations in Committee. Whether he did or not, he should give them on Report. I am asking him to give a really detailed explanation of how the figure of £300 million is arrived at. Whether our Amendment, suggesting that we use the amount of money spent since 1964 is right, I do not know. If the Minister said that we shall have a figure for the last four years, or even three years, I should be prepared to accept that if it has the support of the consultants.
I support the hon. Member for Orpington on this. We should know how the £300 million is arrived at and the Minister should accept an Amendment—I am not arguing that it should be this one— which gives a formula without naming a figure. If the figure is arrived at from a sound formula it will carry more confidence in the future. I am disturbed because we cannot get the explanation. The Minister must give one if he expects the figures which we must accept in the future to carry any confidence.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: We have again had a repetition of what has been, during the whole debate, an exercise in exaggeration. Hon. Members have over-exaggerated and gilded the whole of their case with a great deal of synthetic anger. The Steering Group outlined a new approach to the financing of the undertaking, but when one has to decide on a policy arising from its report it is a matter of conjecture

whether the starting capital value is £300 million, £400 million or £200 million. Anyone picking any starting capital debt can make out an argument for it. But the House will have to accept that the liabilities should have been brought long since into line with the undertaking's net earning power. It is futile for hon. Members opposite to try to persist in an argument which has proved in the past to be an absolute waste of time and a great burden on the undertaking.
Earlier today the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) challenged the House to point to a column in the OFFICIAL REPORT where we accused him of making this kind of approach through Amendment after Amendment, Clause after Clause. I have that reference—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order. I have not intervened in this guillotine section. We are anxious to get on to important areas which it seems that we shall not be able to discuss in view of the way this debate is going. Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to understand the Opposition's dilemma and sit down?

Mr. Marsh: Should not it be made absolutely clear that there are important issues to be discussed later in relation to the manufacturing powers of nationalised industries, that the time for discussing that section was cut at the Opposition's request, and that there is every indication that this debate has been prolonged in a deliberate attempt to ensure that that section is guillotined?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us return to the debate.

Mr. Leadbitter: I rose about three minutes ago. I have sat here all day and not said a word, listening patiently. The hon. Gentleman should accord me the courtesy of allowing me to develop my argument.
Hon. Members opposite have tried to suggest that the starting capital debt of £300 million is the wrong amount. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) talked about a writeoff of about £1,200 million. I never heard him screaming when we wrote off £415 million of the Coal Board debt in order to keep coal miners at work. The principle of writing-off has long been established, but we must put the finances of


this undertaking into perspective. Hon. Members opposite have tried to lead the House and the public outside to believe that we are confining ourselves to a liability which is not in keeping with the investment programme over the past few years. The Board's liabilities are very different from what has been suggested. Under Section 19 of the 1962 Act its loan-bearing liabilities, savings bank liabilities and the interest-bearing liabilities of its pension fund amount to about £400 million. Its total liabilities for 1969 are expected to be about £800 million.

Mr. Stainton: The hon. Gentleman is merely re-perambulating all the arguments and figures which the previous Parliamentary Secretary disclosed to the Committee. May I briefly tell him where the Parliamentary Secretary went wrong. What he did was simply to add up the total of the liability side of the balance sheet, which gave us the gross assets, not the net capital structure, which is what we have been talking about all evening.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall not follow that argument. I shall make my own speeches. Hon. Members opposite have been repeating and repeating themselves until we have been bored to tears. Not one new thing has been said in the House since yesterday morning that was not said upstairs. We have had repetition after repetition and filibustering of the worst kind.
The Government have readily and wisely accepted the general approach to the Board's financing as laid down by the Steering Group, because it gets rid of what was the real trouble between 1955 and 1962—that there is no point in having an investment programme on a modernisation scheme for the Board if the amount of money being put in annually is taken up to meet the debt interest charges of previous years. That was the great trouble, and there is no question about it. The House must accept the principle, if not the amount of £300 million.
The idea of getting rid of what was known as deficit financing and introducing in its place a matching of liabilities with the Board's net earning capacity is a formula which cannot be argued against.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all the money put in since 1964 has been just to pay the interest?

Mr. Leadbitter: It has not been just to pay the interest, but one cannot have a major modernisation programme based on the principle of deficit financing. We need not go into an analysis of the finance of those years. We need only refer to the matters raised time and time again by hon. Members opposite in relation to complaints about the deficits of British Rail.
That has been the result of the financing policy of hon. Members opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) indicated earlier that the British Railways Board was working on a surplus up to 1953 before hon. Members opposite started to tinker with it. We may go on tomorrow and on Thursday morning with over-exaggeration of these issues causing uncertainty unnecessarily outside, but hon. Members opposite must bear in mind that in this Clause the amount of liabilities to be matched with the calculated under-earning capacity is not an arguable point and therefore £300 million is a matter of policy decided by the Government.
I am sure that hon. Members opposite would not argue against this, bearing in the mind the loan liability under Section 19 of the 1962 Act. The hon. Member for Tavistock challenged this House. We are dealing with the idea of integrating the services and giving them certain manufacturing and other powers.

Mr. Peter Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member lor The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) time and time again throughout our debates has made filibustering speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavislock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has not spoken in this debate. The subject with which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools is dealing has not been covered in the debate. We have only 15 minutes left for this subject.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) must come to the Amendment dealing with capital debt.

Mr. Leadbitter: I have been speaking for seven minutes—[An HON. MEMBER:


"Twelve."] I shall pick this point up later this evening and for the benefit of the hon. Member for Tavistock, the column number will be read out loud and clear and definitely in order that the hon. Member will not do it again.

Mr. Swingler: I think we all agree that this has been a rather long discussion. It will also be agreed that most of it has been entirely a repeat of the discussion which we had in Standing Committee. Some hon. Members have made exactly the same speeches as they made in Committee. Further, one hon. Member confessed that he had not read any of the documents, that he had not read the policy document or the consultants' report. Obviously he has not read the Committee Report. This applies to several hon. Members.
The speeches which have been made on this Amendment stand in the way of a discussion by the House of a Clause over which the Opposition have made a tremendous song and dance. Clause 45 deals with the manufacture, repair and supply powers of nationalised industries and we had an interesting discussion on it in Committee. There is some suspicion, as my right hon. Friend implied, that this is all a deliberate attempt to prevent discussion of the very important issue, raised in Committee, due to the prolonging of this discussion by hon. Members who have confessed that they have studied neither the Committee proceedings nor even any of the documents in which these matters are explained.
Therefore, I shall deal with these matters very briefly. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) thought that the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) was a load of rubbish, he could have had the guts to say so across the table in Committee. He did not do that. We had discussions in Committee on these matters, and they were constructively and fruitfully dealt with. The explanation was given then quite clearly, and I give it again in these terms. The consultants recommended— this is in the Vote Office if hon. Members wish to see the document called "Railway Policy "—that the debt of the Board should be written down to a level at which it could reasonably be expected that the interest payments could be found

out of prospective revenues in the early 1970s. That was the policy recommendation of the consultants who had for many months been examining the structure of British Railways and what their future might be.
The Government decided that we should not wait until the 1970s, but that we should end the demoralising open-ended deficit situation as soon as possible. We should take the decision to put an end to deficit financing at the end of this year, to introduce the social grant system for the maintenance of unremunerative lines in supercession of the Beeching Report, and to give British Railways a chance to break even with the necessary calculated reduction of the commencing capital debt. This had to be about £300 million.
7.15 p.m.
Those who vote for £500 million, which is what the Amendment means, will vote for a continuance of deficit financing. That is exactly the nature of their calculation. The question is whether we should do this. Ever since I have been at the Ministry some hon. Members have openly confessed from the Conservative benches that they fully support the iron logic of the Beeching Report. Others have come to me privately and said that they never supported it, as they had an interest in getting subsidies for the unremunerative lines in their constituencies. That has led to great confusion about where hon. Members opposite stood on the question of the iron logic of the closure policy, and on the question of making British Railways profitable by reducing deficit financing.
The question which has to be faced is whether it is right to end deficit financing at the end of this year and to combine it with the social grant system for unremunerative lines. If hon. Members agree with that as a policy decision, the best calculation we could make is that the commencing capital debt should be reduced to £300 million.

Mr. Peter Walker: We want quickly to move to the Clause which the Government are obviously trying to avoid. All I can say in summarising the arguments of the Minister of State is that the difference between the two sides of the House is that he considers we should get rid


of deficit financing by giving the deficit a different name, while we consider that we should get rid of it by improved efficiency.

Question put, That that Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 285.

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Cower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Alstor, John
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Grieve, Percy
Ortslow, Crantey


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
page, Graham (Crosby)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Peel John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R.Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Poweff, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J.M.L.


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pym, Franics



Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Quennell Mils J. M.


Brinton, Sir Tafton
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hiley, Joseph
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn, Quintin
Ridley,Hn.Ncholas


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Bulfus Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Burden,F.A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rusself, Sir Ronald


Campbelf, Gordon
Huntchison Michale, Clark
St. John-Steavas, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T.L.
Scott, Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenking, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Chicheste-Clark, R.
Jennings, J.C. (Burton)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh&amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Craddock,Sir Beresford(Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset,S.)
Stainton,Keith


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crowder, F.P.
Lambton, Viscount
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, Sir William


d'Avigdor-Goldsm.d, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Temple, John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Ceoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W.F. (Ashford)
Lloyed, lan (P' tsm'th, Langtsone)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Drayson, G.B.
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Eden Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Webster, David


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Errington Sir Eric
Maude, Angus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper



Glyn, Sir Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.


Alien, Scholefield
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Ford, Ben
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Barnett, Joel
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Baxter, William
Cinsburg, David
Manuel, Archie


Beaney, Alan
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles


Bence, Cyfil
Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bishop, E. S.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mikardo Ian


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Millan, Bruce


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Harper, Joseph
Milne' Edward (Blyth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boyden, James
Haseldine, Norman
Molloy, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hattersley, Roy
Moomnan, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haffer, Dric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brooks, Edwin
Heing, STanley
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Murry Albert




Neal, Harold


Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hooley, Frank
Newens Stan


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hooson, Emlyn
Norwood Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Odgen, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O, Maslley, Brain


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.


callaghan Rt. Hn. James
Howie, W.



Cant, R.B.
Hoy, James
Oswald Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Owne, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King s Lyrm)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peget, R.T.


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Coneannon, J. D.
Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pardoe, John


Cradrtock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Sir Barnet.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brain (Bedford)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davidson, Arthur (Aecrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R.E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest(Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prince, William (Rugby)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Meriyn


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. w.


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c' as)


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Driberg, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roebuck, Roy


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Ryan, John


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lubbock, Eric
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Eclward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Paulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Fernyhough, L.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Small, William




Snow, Julian

Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Storehouse, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Winnick, David


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woof, Robert


Swingler, Stephen
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Symonds, J. B.
Weitjman, David
Yates, Victor


Taverne, Dick
Wellbeloved, James



Thornton, Ernest
Whitaker, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Whitlock, William
Mr. John McCann and Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Clause 42

DUTY OF FREIGHT CORPORATION AND RAILWAYS BOARD TO REVIEW ORGANISATION

Mr. Carmichael: 1 beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 59, line 5, at end insert:
'after consultation with the authority to whom the directions are given'.
This fulfils an undertaking given by the former Minister, in response to a Liberal Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). In the interests of hastening proceedings I will say no more.

Mr. Bessell: I do not want to delay the House, but I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for meeting the point raised in Committee by myself and by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I am sure that we are both equally gratified by this concession, which will be extremely helpful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

DUTY OF BOARDS AND NEW AUTHORITIES TO PROMOTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 60, line 3, at end insert:
' but nothing in this section shall authorise any such authority to do themselves, either directly or through a subsidiary, any work such as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of this section which the authority would not have power to do apart from this section'.
Not to spoil the atmosphere, this again is an Amendment moved by the Government to assist the Opposition. It meets

one of the points raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) expressed completely unfounded fears about the possibilities that some of the duties of the nationalised transport authorities on research and development might lead them into spheres outside the industry.
In Standing Committee the hon. Gentleman said:
But it is our contention that we are dealing with a whole new set of powers marching parallel with Clause 45 and detached from it … Boards and the authorities which might have entrepreneurial ambitions will want to extend their activities outside the matters for which they were primarily set up … under Clause 43 they can do it and that, with the Minister's permission, there is nothing to stop them from doing it…. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F; 13th March, 1968, c. 1784–5.]
The purpose of the Amendment is to place restrictions on the use of development to meet the point made in Committee.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am delighted that my unfounded and imaginary fears have been prevented by Statute. I gratefully accept the Amendment.

A mendment agreed to.

Clause 44

EXTENSION TO NEW AUTHORITIES OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF BOARDS

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 60, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
To speed up our deliberations on this Amendment I will not quote chapter and verse of the legislation to try to explain what the discussion is about. The object of Clause 44(4) is to make Clause 47(9) apply to Section 16(1) of the 1962 Act. Under Clause 47(9) the new authorities are permitted to transfer land to any organisation, whether it be a private or


public organisation, with which they wish to set up a partnership arrangement.
We are concerned that, for example, the National Bus Company would obtain land under Clause 10(l)(xvi) from a Passenger Transport Authority. The Passenger Transport Authorities are to obtain their land from the municipalities at no cost. Therefore, in the books of the authorities there will be substantial assets in the form of land at no cost. These authorities, which have legitimate partnership arrangements with the National Bus Company, could transfer that land to the National Bus Company. Perhaps three or four years would pass, and the original partnership arrangement and purpose would be lost and forgotten. At that time the National Bus Company could go into a partnership arrangement with a commercial concern for one of the numerous activities permitted to the National Bus Company under Clause 45, which we shall probably not have a chance to discuss. We are concerned that the National Bus Company might transfer the land which it had received for nothing from a Passenger Transport Authority to a company which the National Bus Company jointly owned with a member of the private sector, again for nothing, thus enabling competition within the private and public sector to take place on a wholly unrealistic basis, because the valuation of the land would never have been brought into account. There can be only one possible outcome of inserting subsection (4) in the way the Government did in Standing Committee. Therefore, we seek to delete it.
That is our anxiety. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us that this will not be possible. He might say that my fears are unfounded because, in the event of this sort of situation coming to pass in three, four or five years time and the National Bus Company setting up a joint venture organisation with a private sector company and transferring land to it at no cost, the National Bus Company, under an Amendment to Clause 45 which we managed to extract from the Government, is bound to behave in a commercial manner, and if it behaved in a commercial manner, it would be bound to take account of the assets in its business and value them at current market value. When one couples the fears I have with the definition given

by the Minister of State about what he thinks behaving in a commercial manner amounts to, our anxieties are given great substance.
The Minister of State, when discussing commercial practice, and applying the definition to the National Bus Company, said:
But what seems not to be understood in relation to the financial duty is that we are providing that the National Bus Company and Scottish Transport Group must break even; they must raise revenue sufficient to cover their costs, including, of course, the payment of interest on their capital. That is also to be included. That is not different from the position of any other business organisation.
There was a clear statement. He was expecting those organisations, which are now statutorily compelled to behave in a commercial manner, simply to cover their costs, having paid interest charges on capital.
The situation was cleared up even more when referring to the subsidiaries of new authorities:
These subsidiaries will have to act in a commercial way, covering their costs, without subsidies, including interest charges. That is what is normally meant by acting commercially … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th February, 1968; c. 1366–7.]

Mr. Bessell: This is only to cover costs. There is no provision for profit, which is essential within the private sector.

Mr. Heseltine: I appreciate the difficulty. Time is running out and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) wants to get in on this debate. This is the dilemma which we feel. I know that the hon. Member for Bodmin shares it as strongly as I do.
The Government have no conception of what behaving in a commercial manner amounts to, because they are under the grand delusion that, providing one can draw an interest rate on money and assets tied up in the business and that interest rate reflects more or less the cost of borrowing money, one is behaving in a commercial manner. It is no wonder, therefore, that the undertakings for which they are responsible show such vast and gloomy results whenever they are produced. If anyone in the private sector were to think that all he had to do to behave in a commercial manner was to earn about 6 or 7 per cent. on the value of the assets employed in the business he would be out of business in a short period of time, and quite rightly so.
We have arrived at a situation where land taken from the municipal authorities, against their wishes, and transferred through the National Bus Company into the hands of the private sector is not in any way valued at market rate to ensure that, if it is used by certain parts of the private sector, it is used in fair competition as we, on this side, would understand it.
I understand that this argument needs following through the legislation. It took the Minister of State many hours following through the legislation to understand the point. I realise that in the short time we have left the Minister may be in some difficulties. I hope that he will be able to say: "We have not got a lot of time. The hon. Member is raising a technical point. I want to make sure that there is fair competition of the kind about which he is talking. I will, therefore, undertake to look at it again and, if necessary, introduce an Amendment in another place to ensure that the anxieties which we are discussing are unfounded".
This will enable us to make progress to Clause 45, which we are all anxious to reach. I hope that the Minister, without committing himself to taking action, will at least say that he will examine it again and consider taking the sort of action I am discussing if he feels that my fears are with foundation.

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Member for TJavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, this matter was discussed fairly exhaustively in Committee, and it is a source of constant wonder to me that, given the shortage of time, which is not the fault of the Opposition, they should take up so much time re-hashing exactly the same points. The hon. Gentleman has expressed his fears, as he expressed them in Committee, and we can do little more than say what we said in Committee. That is, that they are unfounded.
Theoretically, technically, he could conceivably have a point, but in practice the position which he raises is a total wild goose chase. The P.T.E.s are most unlikely to want to take over from municipal transport undertakings land or property which could be used for manufacturing or trading. If they did want to, it is hardly conceivable that they would transfer it to the National Bus Company

or any other nationalised authority, since if the property supported a profitable business, the P.T.E. would not want to lose it and, if it were unprofitable, the National Bus Company would not want it.
Therefore, given the assurances, which have been made over and over again, that these bodies will act as commercial bodies, I find it extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen should raise the matter all over again in the same speeches on the same points which were argued and answered in Committee.
I regret that I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman by accepting the Amendment, but I hope that we can get on with Amendments which we could have reached a long time ago if the Opposition had really wanted to. It will be no good, when the Guillotine falls, saying, "Isn't it dreadful? The Government have prevented us from reaching these other Amendments." If a large part of the proceedings had not been concerned with matters on which they had our answers when they were argued in Committee, many of these other matters could have been reached.

Mr. Peter Walker: It is a great mistake for the Minister to comment on a period of the Committee proceedings during which he was not even the Minister. If he had been, he would have realised, as those of us who were on the Committee did, that the reason that this point is raised now—and absolutely correctly—is that, on the point of debate on Clause 45 in Committee, the Government gave way and moved an Amendment to meet this matter of commercial criteria. At that stage, we had already gone through the debates about the executives. It was therefore correct, seeing that they have changed their minds at a late stage on the naitonalised industries, to go back and assume that they would apply the same criteria here.

Mr. Marsh: I am not challenging the right of the Opposition to use their time as they wish; I am expressing a personal view that, given the substance of some of the other Amendments, it is extraordinary that they should choose to pursue this one all over again.

Mr. Peter Walker: When a Government apply the sort of appalling Guillotine which the Government have applied


to this Bill, so that 50 Clauses are not debated at all, it is correct, since they changed their minds about applying commercial criteria to nationalised industries, for us to assume that they would change their minds all the way. They have not,

and I would therefore urge my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 271.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
17.43 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Astor, John
Godtber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratom (Belfast, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant, Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, R.
More, Jasper


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Halt-Davit, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Besselt, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Biffen, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pardoe, John


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheros)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseitine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Higgins,, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


Bryan, Paul
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Atlek (Angus,N&amp;M)
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hooson, Emlyn
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, MarK
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooke, Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Roland


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Sharpies, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox




Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)


Davidson James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Mosa Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Teeling, Sir William


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fletcher-Cootie, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Webster, David


Giles, Rear-Adm, Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)




Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard



Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Wylie, N. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse Leo
Ensor, David
MacColl, James


Albu, Austen
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacDermot, Niall



Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.


Alldritt, Walter
Fernyhough, E.
McGuire, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Foley, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Ford, Ben
Macmillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin


Baxter, William
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Beaney, Alan
Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Galpem, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie


Bishop, E. S.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth


Btenkinsop, Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mendelson, J. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brooks, Edwin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Helper)
Haseldine, Norman
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, Bob(N'c't1e-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Moonman, Eric


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Newens, Stan


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Norwood, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oakes, Gordon


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Ogden, Eric


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian


Chapman, Donald
Huckfied, Leslie
Oram, Albert E.


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S' tn)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Cutlen, Mrs. Alice
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras,S.)
Park, Trevor


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Prilce, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rankin, John


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dobson, Ray
Ledger, Ron
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
 Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Roebuck, Roy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Luard, Evan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rowlands, E.(Cardiff, N.)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Ryan, John







Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Swain. Thomas
Whitlock, Ben


Sheldon, Robert
Swingler, Stephen
Whitlock, William


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Short,Rt.Hn.Edwarcl(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Varley, Eric G.
Winnick, David


Slater, Joseph
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
woof, Robert


Snow, Julian
Wallace, George
Wyatt, Woodrow


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David (Consett)
Yates, Victor


Stonehouse, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Weitzman, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and Mr. John McCann.

Clause 45

MANUFACTURE, REPAIR AND SUPPLY

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 164, in page 61, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is suggested that at the same time we should consider the following Amendments:
No. 165, in page 61, line 7, leave out from 'manufacturing' to 'anything' in line 10.
No. 166, in line 11, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 17 and insert:
'can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minister that they can manufacture cheaper, quicker or to a higher standard than outside suppliers and the authority may repair anything used by it in the course of its business provided that in deciding to so manufacture or repair the authority shall not indulge in such activity unless it shall have materials or facilities for or skill in the manufacture or repair of that thing in connection with some principal activity of that authority or that subsidiary'.
No. 176, in line 28, leave out' existing' and insert' principal'.
No. 177, in line 28 leave out from 'means ' to end of line 32 and insert: 'an activity which is reasonably regarded as activity that is necessary for the authority to carry on to ensure the provision of the transport services for which that authority was established and in this connection ancillary or incidental activities of the authority shall not be so regarded'.
and No. 186, in line 28, leave out subsection (10).

Mr. Heseltine: We now come to the most significant single Clause in the whole of this Transport Bill and it is one of the most grotesque aspects of this whole performance that we should reach it with five minutes to go, having spent one hour and seven minutes discussing a

Clause introduced on Report stage by this Government to raise £30 million for London Transport which their own Ministers know they have no right to treat in this particular way. Having wasted 25 per cent. of the time we are now expected to discuss Clause 45 in four minutes.
If The Times was right this morning in saying that the Bill was not a bad monument to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Barbara Castle), then this Clause is the headstone of that monument; because this Clause extends the powers of nationalised transport boards and undertakings into manufacturing any product that those undertakings believe they are capable of manufacturing and for which they have facilities. The fact of the matter is that this is a major doctrinal difference between the two sides of this House, and if one accepts the sincere wish of hon. Members opposite to extend the powers of nationalised undertakings in this way, they will expect us to protest in the name of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country who have made it abundantly clear that they want no such extension of powers of this kind.
When we read the language in which this new Clause is couched our fears could not be greater, because we find these organisations, which have been nationalised purely for the purpose of creating transport undertakings which are considered to be provided only in the way of State enterprises, are now to be permitted to indulge, virtually without control, in any other kind of activity that, at their whim, they feel they should be able to do. One realises that this is the last time a Clause of nationalisation will ever need to come before this House; because at any time in the future that a


Labour Government wants to buy into the private sector they will have no need to introduce a Bill into this House. All they have to do is to go to one of the nationalised transport undertakings and get that undertaking to buy it for them.

Mr. Marsh: I would make the point that they will be able to do that only within the context of the very strict financial disciplines laid upon them; and why should not the taxpayers be allowed to use their assets in that way?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to strict financial disciplines. Those are there because we on this side put them in. They are there as a result of concessions made by the Government during the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman was not the Minister at the time but he will know that we put down an Amendment during the Committee stage to make these undertakings behave as commercial undertakings and that concession was made.

Mr. Leadbitter: Mr. Leadbitter rose—

Mr. Heseltine: We have listened to the hon. Member enough today. We are not listening to him any more. The concession we obtained from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor is severely curtailed by the definition given to it by the Minister of State. The Minister of State, in quotations already put before the House this afternoon, made it quite clear that all he thinks commercial undertakings have to do is to break even and earn interest—that is what he said. The right hon. Gentleman may object to what he said, but we are moving this Amendment because we are appalled at the prospect that the principal factor to be complied with in the limitless range of activities by State organisations is that they have to earn a modicum of rate of interest on their assets. This definition was introduced by the Minister of State and therefore in order that the House may express its opinion, I beg to move the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 277.

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[7.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstcad)
Clark, Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Astor, John
Clegg, Walter
Cower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cooke, Robert
Cram, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Corfleld, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithome) Grieve, Percy



Batoiel, Lord
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Grimood, Rt. Hn. J.


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Gurden, Harold


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Ronald
Currie, G. B. H.
HaH-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Daikeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Besselt, Peter
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Harrison, Brian (Matdon)


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Black, Sir Cyril
Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Blaker, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hastings, Stephen


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Doughty, Charles
Hawkins, Paul


Body, Richard
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Drayson, G. B.
Heaid, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Heseltine, Michael


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Br'mton, Sir Tatton
EIHiott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Emery, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Bruce, Gardyrte, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hooson, Emlyn


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Fisher, Nigel
Homby, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Ftetcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Forteecue, Tim
Hunt, John


Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Campbell, Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)




Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Neave, Airey
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Speed, Keith


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Kimball, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. s.
Stoddart-Scotl, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Kirk, Peter
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Teeling, Sir William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Temple, John M.


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoflrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
 Peel, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Percival, Ian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lubbock, Eric
Peyton, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


MacArthur, Ian
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Prior, J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Pym, Francis
Walters, Dennis


MacmMian, Maurice (Famhant)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Webster, David


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Woodnutt, Mark


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


More, Jaspe
Scott-Hopkins, James
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Sharpies, Richard



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Hector Monro and


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp; L'mlngton)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Albu, Austin

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Faulds, Andrew


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Femyhough, E.


Alldritt, Walter
Coe, Denis
Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston)


Allen, Schole field
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forrester, John


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Barnett, Joel
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Freeson, Reginald


Baxter, William
Dalyell, Tarn
Galpem, Sir Myer


Beaney, Alan
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gardner, Tony


Bence, Cyril
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Cinsburg, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Daviea, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gregory, Arnold


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Witt (Exchange)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Delargy, Hugh
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Booth, Albert
Dell, Edmund
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hamling, WHIiam


Boyden, James
Dewar, Donald
Hannan, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dobson, Ray
Haseldine, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Doig, Peter
Hatterdey, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown,Bob(M'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Henig, Stanley


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; f'bury)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hilton, W. S.


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, John
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Callaghan. Rt. Hn. James
English, Michael
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert (Islington, s.w.)
Howie, W.




Hoy, James
Mapp, Charles
Robinson, W.O.J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Huckfield, Leslie

Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marquand, David
Roebuck, Roy


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rose, Paul


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mayhew, Christopher
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, J. J.
Ryan, John


Hynd, John
Mikardo, lan
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Short, Rt. Hn. Eclward (N'c' tle-u-Tyne)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
 Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Snow, Julian


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Murray, Albert
Spriggs, Leslie


Judd, Frank
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Kelley, Richard
Newens, Stan
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.


Kenyon, Clifford
Norwood, Christopher
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oakes, Cordon
Swain, Thomas


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Leadbitter, Ted
O'Malley, Brian
Symonds, J. B.


Ledger, Ron
Oram, Albert E.
Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Ormc, Stanley
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, John (Reading)
Oswald, Thomas
Tinn, James


Lestor, Miss Joan
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Torrey, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Varley, Eric C.


Lomas, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Luard, Evan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Park, Trevor
Watkins, David (Consett)


McBride, Neil
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McCann, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Weitzman, David


MacColl, James
Pavitt, Laurence
Wellbeloved, James


MacDermot, Niall
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Whitaker, Ben


Macdonald, A. H.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


McGuire, Michael
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Maclennan, Robert
Randall, Harry
Winnick, David


Macmillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Woof, Robert


McNamara, J. Kevin
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rhodes, Geoffrey



Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Richard, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Hudersfield,E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

It being after Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Clause 46

POWERS WITH RESPECT TO LAND

Amendment made: No. 189, in page 64, line 40, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 51

RAILWAY CLOSURES

Amendments made: No. 204, in page 73, line 41, leave out from ' State' to 'any' and insert:
(5A) Where any condition or direction such as is referred to in subsection (5) of this section requires the provision of alternative services by, or by a subsidiary of, the Bus Company or the Scottish Group or in pursuance of arrangements made by that Company or that Group, the cost of providing those alternative services shall be borne by that Company or, as the case may be, that Group.
(5B) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (5A) of this section: —

No. 205, in page 73, line 44, leave out ' this subsection ' and insert' the said subsection (5)'.

No. 206, in page 73, line 45, leave out ' this subsection ' and insert' the said subsection (5)'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 53

ASSISTANCE BY MINISTER OR LOCAL AUTHORITY TOWARDS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES

Amendment made: No. 207, in page 76, line 21, leave out from 'made' to 'for' in line 28.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 57

AUTHORISED VEHICLES

Amendment made: No. 208, in page 79, line 15, after ' (1)', insert:
'Subject to subsection (1A) of this section '.— [Mr. Swindler.]

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move Amendment No. 209, in page 79, line 38, at the end to insert:
(1A) An operator's licence shall not authorise the use of any vehicle unless the place which is for the time being its operating centre—

(a) is in the area of the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted; or
(b) is outside that area and has not been the operating centre of that vehicle for a period of more than three months.

For the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection, two or more successive periods which are not separated from each other by an interval of at least three months shall be treated as a single period having a duration equal to the total duration of those periods.
This Amendment and Amendment No. 208 implement the undertaking which I gave in Committee that an operator moving existing authorised vehicles from one operating centre to a different centre would be allowed a period of three months' grace before being required to take any licensing action in respect of those vehicles. Amendment No. 209 achieves what is required in respect of vehicles. Amendment No. 222 to Clause 61 deals with the transport manager situation.
With the Amendments the position will be that vehicles moved to a different centre in the same traffic area where they are already licensed will continue to be authorised under their original licence. No change in the Bill is needed in this

case. Vehicles moved to a different centre in another traffic area will benefit from the new subsection (1A), which will allow them to be authorised on their original licence for up to three months. If they are still at the new centre at the end of that time, they must be authorised on a licence in the new area.
The new subsection (1A) also provides that periods at an unlicensed centre which are not separated by at least three months are to be aggregated and count towards a single three-month allowance. This is to prevent a possible abuse by which an operator might run a permanent unlicensed base by claiming that all the vehicles were moved from there for one day every three months, thus breaking the continuity and entitling him to a fresh start.
On the basis of the discussion which we had in Committee and the way in which we have applied ourselves to meeting the point which hon. Members raised, I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We have moved to Part V of the Bill and particularly to quality licensing as opposed to quantity licensing. I make that distinction to remind hon. Members opposite that whereas we are opposed to quantity licensing we are not opposed to the system incorporated in this Part of the Bill.
It would be necessary for the Government at this time to produce a new system based on safety and maintenance, but what we are trying to do is to reduce inflexibility, red tape and bureaucracy wherever they appear in this Part of the Bill. We are, therefore, glad that the Government have tabled these Amendments and have carried out their undertaking given in Committee, particularly, to introduce this provision about the period of three months.
This will introduce flexibility and it will be regarded as an improvement by the industries affected—those which have to move vehicles from one licensing authority's area to another. I mention, in particular, the construction industry, which was very worried about the Bill as it was drafted. If they had had to take up contracts at short notice in distant parts of Britain from their operating centre, they would have been seriously


retarded by having to go through the procedure of applying for an operator's licence, transport manager's licence, and so on.
We hope that the Government will introduce other Amendments which will make this Part of the Bill more flexible.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 210, in page 80, line 15, leave out from 'therein' to 'is' in line 16 and insert:

(a) has ceased to be used under the licence (otherwise than because of a fluctuation in business or because it is undergoing repair or maintenance); or
(b) — [Mr. Swingler.]

Clause 58

APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATORS' LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 211, in page 80, line 19, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) A person may apply for an operator's licence to the licensing authority for each area in which, if the licence is granted, the applicant will have an operating centre or operating centres; and a person may hold separate operators' licences in respect of different areas but shall not at any time hold more than one such licence in respect of the same area.—[Mr. Swingler.]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 212, in page 81, line 3, to leave out lines 3 to 5.
Those lines constitute paragraph (b) of subsection (4), and are particulars of the demand which is expected for the carriage of goods by those vehicles.
In Committee, the Minister stated categorically that in this Part of the Bill dealing with quality licensing there would be no element of quantity licensing. Therefore, we are surprised to find that this paragraph requires an applicant to give details of the demand expected. In Committee, the Minister clearly stated:
This is not a system of quantity licensing. It is a system of quality licensing. Therefore, the judgment which the licensing authority is called upon to make is about the quality. If the operator can show that he has maintenance facilities which are adequate for a much bigger fleet than that which he happens to have, then he has permission to expand his fleet without reference back to the

authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 28th March, 1968; c. 2280.]
Given that there is no element of quantity licensing here, and provided that the safety and maintenance provisions are satisfactory for the operation of a larger number of vehicles, it is difficult to see why it should be necessary to give in the application particulars of the demand expected for the carriage of goods. The applicant is expected to give to the licensing authority a number of other particulars, but this requirement does not appear to be necessary and, indeed, it is misleading because it gives the impression that there is a quantity element in this part of the Bill.
I recognise that when this matter was discussed previously there may have been a misunderstanding because the Minister spoke of the financial resources which an applicant had to show he possessed. But paragraph (g) of subsection (4) deals with the question of financial resources. It is not that to which we object; it is the question of demand. I hope that the Government will have considered this matter again because I believe that there was a genuine misunderstanding in Committee. I trust that they will agree that the question of demand does not arise from this Clause. We shall have a lot to say about demand and on the quantity licensing proposals, which are entirely different.
I hope that the Government will reconsider this point, otherwise it will be difficult for operators to believe that no quantity element is involved. I trust that they will not say that there is a quantity element in the present A and B licensing systems. We know that. The point of the proposals in the Bill is to do away with the existing system and to provide two separate systems—on quality and quantity.
It is the intention of hon. Members on both sides of the House to try to make the system of quality licensing as broadly acceptable as possible to everybody subjected to it. The Amendment proposes a way to remove the doubts and misunderstandings and to make it clear that the system is based on quality.

Mr. David Mitchell: In considering rather carefully how this Clause could have appeared in the form in which it is it seems to me that it is a


left-over from an old fear which is no longer justified. There was a fear, and it may be that hon. Members opposite still have it, that a man might purchase a couple of old lorries not in a roadworthy condition, pay a fiver each for them when they ought to have gone to the breaker's yard, and set up in business in that way. I know there is a genuine feeling among some hon. Members, and one can understand it, that if we do not have a restriction in this Clause this sort of thing might happen. However, the whole purpose of this Part of the Bill dealing with the quality licensing is to prevent that from happening, because if a lorry is not in a fit condition to be on the road, and if the man proposing to use it has not the finance to maintain it properly, he will not be allowed to do any business with it. That being so the basic reason for putting in this paragraph does not apply any longer. Therefore I would support my hon. Friend very strongly in pressing the Government to delete the paragraph.
Apart from there being now no longer any reason for its being in the Bill, there is the other aspect of the matter, that it is really very unfair that a man should have to expose for consideration exactly what business he is proposing to get, and leave it to somebody else to assess his prospects of success. So far as I understand it, the information which is given to the licensing authority will not be entirely private and privileged but could find its way into the hands of the man's competitors. This would be grossly unfair and improper, but there seems to be no way to prevent that from happening under the proposals as laid down here.
Moreover, the ability of such a body to judge whether or not a man will have sufficient business to make a success of his enterprise must be a matter for him and not for such a body. I put it to the Minister that had he been at the Board of Trade a few years ago and somebody had come along and said, "I want permission to spend money on making an egg-beating machine" he would probably have booted him out of the office, but the fact is that the manufacture of the Kenwood mixer was built up having been undertaken when it was not regarded as economic. I do not think the licensing authorities have this wonderful ability to judge, better than the man whose capital

is involved, whether his proposed enterprise will be a success or not.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If the hon. Member studies the reports of the licensing authorities established over the past five or six years he will find exactly the opposite of what he is trying to tell the House. In their annual reports they have proved, quite conclusively to the reasonable man, that in many cases they are in a far better position to judge.

Mr. Mitchell: One of the advantages of a competitive system in a free society is that, for the benefit of everybody, prices are kept down—by traders and manufacturers competing—

Mr. Huckfield: This has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Mitchell: —and why should they not be allowed so to do? After all, we are proposing to start this system by applying it to vehicles of 30 cwt. and over. There is no such restriction on vehicles of under 30 cwt. It seems to be a slightly artificial point at which to make this criterion start to operate. Apart entirely from that, the high cost of setting up in business these days, the high cost of vehicles, and the high cost of maintaining them at high standards, seems to me to be sufficient to deter people from setting up in business unless they have a genuine prospect of making a success of it. People do not have vast sums of money to chuck about recklessly. Bank managers look carefully before lending money to finance the start of enterprises of this sort.
For these reasons I do not believe there is any need for the Bill to contain this paragraph, which is really a part of quantity licensing rather than quality licensing, and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: This is an important matter. It is a matter which, under a different guise, we discussed at some length in Standing Committee, but I think it is important for us to emphasise here that, as the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said, we are dealing with two separate systems of licensing. We are dealing with quality licensing and with quantity licensing. I join the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn in saying that the broad principle of quality licensing is entirely acceptable


to us, as, indeed, is much of the detail contained in this Part of the Bill. We believe that there is a strong argument to be advanced in favour of tightening up controls to ensure not only greater safety of the vehicles themselves but, in turn, greater safety for the drivers of the vehicles and other road users.
Having said that, I believe it is right to underline that the two systems have somehow or another become muddled, because whichever way one looks at Clause 58(4)(b), which this Amendment would delete, it cannot be regarded as other than an element of quantity licensing. The point which is covered by it is covered by the provisions of Clause 67, and it is, therefore, quite unnecessary, in my view, but even if it were necessary, even if the Minister were to say, for example, that under the present licensing system a similar requirement has to be met—to which my reply, incidentally, would be that in any case it is covered under the quantity licensing system—even if he were to reply to the argument on privacy which the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) put, that an applicant already has to disclose a great deal about his business and disclose it publicly so that that is already known to his competitors, the fact remains that this paragraph is unworkable, at least so I believe, and that is the reason why I support the Amendment and why I objected in Standing Committee to this paragraph.
8.30 p.m.
If we look at this paragraph, we see that taken in relation to the rest of the Clause it can be operated at the discretion of the licensing authority. The licensing authority may decide to ask for a number of particulars which are spelled out in this subsection, and among those for which he may decide to ask are
particulars of the demand which it is expected there will be for the carriage of goods by means of those vehicles ".
I do not believe that it is possible to operate this paragraph, because although some licensing authorities with sound common sense will say, "This is really something which we cannot expect every operator to answer, though there may be some instances where they can", other licensing authorities may decide, perhaps

because of representations made to them —who knows—that this is a paragraph which ought to be operated. Then if the applicant cannot satisfy them in relation to the demand which is likely to be made upon the vehicles, they are quite clearly entitled to turn down the application.
I believe that this is a very serious situation indeed, because I can visualise a case where, for example, a comparatively small carrier may not be able to indicate the demand which is going to be made upon his services. He may say that he expects there will be a demand, let us say, to remove furniture or goods from one part of the country to another, or within a restricted area. But he may not be able to say with certainty what the demand is going to be. While the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was speaking, I was thinking of a small haulier who operates his business from his depot near me in Cornwall. He has a relatively small business with two or three lorries, but I should guess that it would be extremely difficult for him to tell me or any licensing authority in any degree of detail what he anticipates his business is likely to be one month from now. He could probably say, "I have orders for this week and orders for next week, and on my books I have one or two orders for the week after next", but I should not expect him to be able to give a complete picture.

Mr. Manuel: I can agree with what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is saying, but paragraph (b) is not asking for that. The operator is obviously expecting something, or he would not be applying for an operator's licence. There is no detail asked for here. But he is expected to give some information about the volume that he intends to carry.

Mr. Bessell: I would say to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), that if the paragraph were worded in that way, and were as clear as the hon. Gentleman has himself made it, then I do not think there would be any objection to it, although I should still say that an element of quantity was being introduced into the quality licensing system. But, having said that, I still cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, because the paragraph does not say that the licensing authority must be


given some approximate idea of what is expected. What it says is,
particulars of the demand which it is expected …

In other words, it asks for particulars of the demand which has caused a person to go into business. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire rightly said the applicant may be able to give a rough outline. I do not think anyone would go into that sort of business or apply for a licence under this new system unless he had some idea, and some anticipation of profits.

Mr. William Baxter: Does this Clause not have a bearing on Clause 59, which lays down certain persons who can object to a licence being granted? I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree with him that it would be a bit difficult to get a licence, because Clause 59 gives certain persons or groups of persons power to object to one's having it.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point here, because if this is taken in association with Clause 59 the point is underlined. Although the particulars of the person who may object, and the system under which he may object, are spelled out pretty clearly, and the Clause is clearly restrictive—in principle, it is not a bad Clause—the difficulty is that once there is a system of objection, which I accept there must be, it is then possible to give a far greater significance to a paragraph of this sort than would be the case if there were no method of objection. That is why I feel the paragraph is dangerous in its present form, because it may well be that an applicant is unable to satisfy the licensing authority, if the licensing authority in its discretion decides to make this particular demand. I recognise that in the majority of cases the licensing authority is not likely to exercise this paragraph, and will be satisfied with a general statement of the anticipated business, but the discretion could be misused.

Mr. David Mitchell: But surely a licensing authority will be bound by the provisions of this Measure when it becomes an Act. It does not refer to a general statement. It says "particulars", and, legally, "particulars" means what it says and not what the hon. Member

for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is now expressing the hope that it might be allowed to mean.

Mr. Bessell: If I may say so, this is not quite correct. Subsection (4) does not concern the basic information. That is dealt with in subsection (1). It says:
A person applying for an operator's licence shall give to the licensing authority any further information which he may reasonably require for the discharge of his duties in relation to the application, and in particular shall, if he is required by the licensing authority …
In other words, the licensing authority is given absolute discretion, and I see the Parliamentary Secretary indicating his agreement.
In most cases, I believe that the average licensing authority will not require more than a general statement, but in certain cases, especially where an objection is raised, one might run into a situation where this would be a demand which it would be impossible to fulfil.
Apart from the fact that I agree with the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn that this is a quantity licensing provision and should have its place in the quantity section if it is to be in the Bill at all, there is a practical objection, and, for that reason, I hope that the Government will agree that it is a valid point by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. W. Baxter: I hesitate to enter into the debate, but this matter is a rather important aspect of the Bill. As one with some experience of being on the receiving end of a licensing authority, I am a little concerned about the powers of such authorities as they are defined in the Clause. In the past, my experience has been that licensing authorities can become a law unto themselves, just as committees and individuals have a tendency to do when they are given permissive powers under a Statute.
During the last war, I had a conditional B licence, which was taken away when the licence system came back into its own again. Since then, I have applied diligently for an A or B licence to permit my firm to ply for hire for reward.
The Clause and subsequent provisions give a licensing authority certain powers by defining it in such a way that it can become almost a law unto itself. One has no power to override it, because it


has the statutory power to carry out its obligations as it sees fit. After all, a traffic commissioner is only human, and he has the usual weaknesses of human beings.

Mr. Manuel: May I remind my hon. Friend that the Clause and this Amendment deal entirely with quality licensing. The Clause has nothing to do with the issue of a licence for a vehicle as such. It is concerned with giving it a quality licence. The Clause is brought forward in order to make sure that operators' vehicles are kept in good condition.

Mr. Baxter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I am aware that this is on the basis of quality. However, I believe that there is a factor based upon quantity here which we would prefer not to see in this part of the Bill.
I do not see the matter in as simple and as clear a light as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). It is not depicted in a manner which one can see and describe. Indeed, there is a parallel here with a good deal of modern art that one sees nowadays, where it is difficult to tell whether a man's head is intended to be on his shoulders or between his legs. A similar concept has crept into drafting in this House. If it was as clear as my hon. Friend indicates, there would be no need for me to ask for clarification. I may not be as clever or able as some hon. Members who had the privilege of examining the Bill in Committee upstairs, but I say frankly that this is bad legislation which gives permissive power to an individual or a group of individuals who are not responsible in any way to the House of Commons.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If my hon. Friend is saying that this is bad legislation, I do not think that he is aware that many licensing authorities are now and have been for some years asking for this kind of information.

Mr. Baxter: My hon. Friend has not followed the point I am making. No one knows more than I do about being on the receiving side of the licensing authority. Since the war, I have had 14, 15 or 16 vehicles and I have always been on the receiving side. I am conscious of

the need for vehicles to be kept up to the highest peak of perfection.
I want to be sure that this new group of people, who will have the power to say whether or not one should have a licence, will take into consideration the aspects of the matter which were considered under the previous arrangements —that is, the quantity of vehicles used in a particular area. This is an important aspect of this Bill and I should like greater clarification.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has raised this issue from a practical point of view. I was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill and I therefore come to the subject fresh. I am alarmed by the Clause and by Clause 58.
I declare my interest in that I am a director of a company that distributes motor spare parts. We have 30 or 40 lorries distributing silencers, brake linings and so on to 40 or 50 depots, and we must carry these items about the country every day of the week. The ordinary C licensee, and I am one, must now give eight different sets of particulars to the licensing authorities—a burden in itself. In addition, he must give particulars of the demand for his transport; the demand for the carriage of goods. In other words, he must show the licensing authority what induces him to run his lorries about the country, distributing goods to his own depots. If I read the Clause correctly, it seems that a trade association could, on behalf of one of its members, bring into the light of day the details of the trade being carried out by an operator.
8.45 p.m.
In the trade with which I am connected there are only two main competitors. I assume that one competitor could, through a trade association, object to what his counterpart is doing and thereby seek details of the demand for the carriage of goods by his competitor. This is Socialism going rather mad. [Interruption.] I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would listen to my argument. People must disclose details not in relation to operators competing with railway companies but of one's ordinary trade between one's headquarters store and


Depôts in various parts of the country. I would have thought that this was part of quantity licensing rather than quality licensing and that, if anywhere, it should be in a different part of the Bill.
I am alarmed at this provision and I cannot imagine its object. Why should a trader who is carrying on business in his own trade and transporting goods to his own depots have to disclose the details of his trade to his competitors? To be obliged to give the details of demand is totally wrong in the mixed economy in which we live.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am perplexed by the observations of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) because he does not realise that under the Bill his company will not only be in a position to carry its own goods but to carry other people's goods, too. This particularly applies if his firm is operating, as I suspect it is, vehicles of under 16-tons gross and below 5-tons unladen. It is only right and proper that there should be some sort of examination of the demand which the hon. Gentleman could perhaps claim for his vehicles.
For people who operate C licence vehicles only, even the conditions under the new proposals will put them in a privileged position compared with their counterparts in, for example, the Common Market countries, the United States and Canada. If the hon. Gentleman considers the system operating in Germany he will see that there is a penal tax on private goods vehicle operation. Under the system in Holland there is the utmost dissuasion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: I am pointing out to the hon. Member for Twickenham the error of his ways. He does not realise that in future there will be about 900,000 goods vehicles in a category which will—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: I am attempting to point out that in future instead of having to go through the ritual procedure

of approaching the licensing authority for an A, B, C or contract licence— which is itself a check on demand from the point of view of an applicant's facilities—no such check will exist. Consequently, the fact that an applicant for a licence will no longer have to apply for an A, B or C licence, if he is in the category which will be excluded, will be to his advantage. That being so, it is essential that there is a check on the applicant's facilities.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that such a request for information about demand would be more relevant to quantity than to quality licensing?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has convinced me that he has not read the rest of the Bill. Instead of the hon. Gentleman and some of his contractors having to obtain an A. B. C or one of the appropriate licences, they will simply have to get an operator's licence if their vehicles are under 16-tons gross and 5-tons unladen. In this category it was more than relevant for the licensing authority to be in a position, if it so wished, to ask the applicant for some evidence of the demand for his services.
I suggest that the two hon. Gentlemen look at the kind of comments that have been made in the annual reports of licensing authorities up and down the country over the past five or six years. They prove conclusively to all who read them that in applications for licences— especially "A" contract licences, which will be in a similar position as regards some of the applications under the Clause, the licensing authorities are already asking for particulars of this kind. Unless the licensing authority is in a position to ask for some evidence of demand, although it may be able to check on maintenance facilities and other things, the best evidence that it could ask for that a vehicle would be maintained and that a business would have a certain amount of stability, is, as it already seeks, some evidence of demand for the applicant's facilities. This is particularly relevant as many of the businesses tend to edge their way into transport by putting one or two vehicles of their own on the road first and then extending their sphere of operations to carrying other people's goods. So I should


have thought that in this context it was very relevant that the licensing authority should seek some proof of demand.

Mr. W. Baxter: I think my hon. Friend will recognise this is just the difficulty I see in this Clause—that the licensing authority will take into consideration items that are not stipulated in this Clause, to say whether or not quantity licences have to be granted, and one of the factors as he sees it is the demand within that area. Will he direct his attention to this aspect?

Mr Huckfield: The point there is that in future there will be about 900,000 vehicles which at present have to go through some kind of application procedure for quantity licensing which in future will no longer have to do so. But if we have a look at the kind of figures, for instance, of maintenance convictions and at the kind of roadside spot checks which have been operated by the Minister of Transport I would have thought that many licensing authorities, on the basis of these figures, will be in future insisting on some kind of proof of demand being offered. I have given way to a large number of speakers; I will give way just once more.

Mr. David Mitchell: Would the hon. Member indicate to the House what possible connection there is between the degree of maintenance and the amount of trade being done?

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman, who has been feigning a certain amount of business experience all the way through the Standing Committee, does not recognise the very direct connection between a regular revenue coming into an operator and the amount of maintenance he can afford to do, I am very sorry for him. Although licensing authorities can ask under this Clause, and others, that some maintenance must be done, although they can ask for some kind of guarantee of an applicant's position, the best guarantee that any licensing authority can ask for that an operator will stay in business and conduct a stable business is some kind of evidence that he has a demand for his services. For those reasons, and particularly that reason, I urge the complete rejection of the Amendment.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: It is clear that there is great anxiety and apprehension on both sides of the House. In Committee there was considerable support for our point of view on the matter from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and I am very sorry that he is not here now, for I am sure that he would have helped us. He said in Committee:
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Opposition on this issue. Everything that the Government has said up to now in relation to this Bill implies there is now to be a new process. Apparently quantity licensing is out, except for certain types of vehicles, and in its place will come quality licensing. However, there is no question of demand coming into quality licensing at all.
He was then interrupted by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who made the same sort of speech as he has made tonight. He said a little later:
I have been assured by the Minister of State that there are adequate facilities and provision in the Bill to make sure that vehicles are properly maintained. Therefore, accepting the Minister of State's statement, which I am inclined to doubt, if the machinery is adequate there is no justification for putting in this paragraph which says that an operator applying for an operator's licence has now to show that there is a demand for his services."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 2nd April, 1968; c. 2316.]
The hon. Member put the case even better than anyone on this side of the House can.
There is no need to put any particulars of demand in an application for a quality licence. All the arguments have been very well deployed this evening. I rest my case on two of them. First, under paragraph (g) of subsection (4) the licensing authority can ask for particulars of the applicant's financial resources. I should have thought that that was sufficient. Second, if the authority is in doubt in any case it can give a probationary licence for one year. That might be a useful provision for someone coming new into the business. No doubt, if he is not successful, his licence will not be renewed.
It is an imposition for hauliers, particularly small hauliers, to have to give details of their businesses in their applications and to try to guess details of the demand they hope to have. This is a practical point. We have had representations from hauliers along those lines. It


is unnecessary to put in the paragraph, which belongs to quantity licensing and not quality licensing. All the arguments have been one way in the debate. It would be only stubbornness by the Government if they tried to resist the Amendment any further.
We are not against quality licensing. This is not a highly controversial issue. We should like to see that this is made to work with a minimum of bureaucracy. The paragraph will merely annoy hauliers, and is totally unnecessary.

Mr. Carmichael: The debate has been rather longer than I had expected from looking at the Amendment. It seems that in this Report stage one thing catches up with another and we go on and on.
The purpose of including the paragraph is to allow the licensing authority to ask an applicant for further information directed towards discovering whether the business he proposes to conduct, if granted a licence, is likely to be viable, so that the licensing authority will be able to judge whether he will be tempted by inadequate revenue to economise too much on the maintenance of his vehicles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) explained very clearly there is no element of quantity licensing involved. The power to require an applicant to supply this information is discretionary. The licensing authority is not bound to ask for it, but is allowed to do so.
We must consider just what the licensing authority is. It is not a group of people who do not know anything about transport. I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) trying to suggest that the licensing authority would not be able to judge whether someone could start a transport business, but seemed to think that a bank manager could. Bank managers are wonderful people. They have enormous understanding of their localities and what happens there, but the hon. Gentleman chose an unfortunate example because the licensing authorities are undoubtedly the authorities on transport matters in their areas. Most of them are very experienced. They are not new bodies being set up. They are able to judge the needs of the area. They are concerned about particulars of the demand which a new entrant would expect to receive.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a man who is prepared to put up several thousand pounds of his own money is not in as good a position to judge whether that is a sound investment as the person outside who has no internal knoweldge of his own ability?

Mr. Carmichael: I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that the hon. Member is being unusually naive. If he studies the history of the road haulage industry, he will know that it is an industry which is full of responsible people willing to set up in business. One of the problems of the road haulage industry in the past was that it was bedevilled by people starting up with one lorry.

Mr. W. Baxter: My hon. Friend does not seem to appreciate, nor apparently do his colleagues on the Front Bench, that most of our large businesses—and this certainly applies to road haulage—were started up by men who were looked upon as cranks because they were prepared to risk their money in starting up a business. If it had not been for those people with faith in their own ability, then many business which exist today would not have come into being. It would be wrong for any Government to put any obstacle in the way of any person in the future to start up a business from small beginnings. It is from small acorns that great oaks grow.

Mr. Carmichael: I take the point of my hon. Friend. I know that in his own case there is a romantic story of the sort he outlined. But we are now dealing with a situation which is far removed from the chaotic situation which existed in the 1930s. A licensing system then had to be introduced, not to prevent the honest man trying to make a living, but to prevent people coming into the industry and engaging in cut-throat competition, throwing safety aside, and concentrating only on getting as much as they could out of the vehicles and their drivers.
We are now dealing with a situation in which roads are badly crowded and in which it has been proved that the maintenance of a large number of lorries leaves a great deal to be desired. All we


are asking here is that licensing authorities, who are highly responsible and experienced people, should be given the discretion, when they are in doubt, to ask a person who applies for a licence what sort of demand there is in the area for his business.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question I put to him? Supposing a company has vehicles which go round the depots delivering the company's own goods. Does such a company have to disclose to the licensing authority the details of the number of goods, and so on? That seems to be the reason for this Clause and, if it is, I say that it is wrong.

Mr. Carmichael: I was coming to what the hon. Gentleman said. He spoke about Socialism going mad. That is one of the queerest definitions of Socialism I have ever heard. A firm which is running its own business will presumably only purchase vehicles when it has the material to move round in the vehicles. It is a different situation from that which is envisaged by the safeguard in this Clause. This provision seeks to deal with the genuine person who may have a good idea of the business he could start and the way he should go about it. We are asking that the licensing authority, if it so desires, should be given the power to ask a new entrant to the industry to supply information.
People not already established in the business, with insufficient background but with sufficient money behind them, would have to prove to the licensing authority that they had a reasonable expectation of demand for their services. In that case they would, in the judgment of the authority, get the licence.

Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman now seems to be saying that he would accept our Amendment No. 213 which exempts people carrying their own goods and running their own businesses. If this Clause were limited to new entrants to the road haulage industry that would be sufficient.

Mr. Carmichael: We must deal with one Amendment at a time. This is a power which we feel a licensing authority should have in these peripheral cases when there may be difficulty in deciding.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. He has mentioned peripheral cases, and says it is unlikely that a licensing authority would require this demand to be met in the case of an established haulage company. It is unlikely, but does he deny that an authority could demand this and the permissive power could be abused?

Mr. Carmichael: We are doing less than justice to the licensing authorities who are composed of highly experienced men. We are trying to provide them with safeguards. This can work both ways. One of the requirements of Clause 60 is that there must be sufficient financial backing in order to maintain the vehicle standards. Some fine businesses have been built on small beginnings, and if someone in such a position went to the authority with even a small amount of capital behind him, and could prove that he had a reasonably good demand for his services, then the other criteria could be, to some extent balanced by this. This Clause will provide the best way of giving the licensing authority the powers that it will require.

Mr. Webster: I am not sure how I would deal with quality licences, having been speechless through laryngitis since yesterday. I had better check to see whether my maintenance facilities are all right. The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude was basically against people trying to get started in the industry. He talked as if this was only the new operators coming in. This is not the case. If he would give us an assurance that he will accept Amendment No. 213, that would help us greatly. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) made it clear that we accept in principle quality control but not quantity control.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), with his great length of practical experience, expressed grave doubts in Committee about this part of the Bill. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) illustrated a personal experience regarding this point and the doubts that a practical operator has of giving excessive powers to a licensing authority. We are in absolute agreement that, on the question of quality control, matters of financial probity, maintenance facility and record of the company should


be excellent. But on quantity control and whether there is enough demand to keep the business going, surely the operator is the judge, not the administrator. This is basic to our whole attitude towards this matter.
We have another Amendment down, so I do not want to extend things by talking about confidentiality. However, this again is a worry that we have. We shall be moving an Amendment on this later, and I hope that we will get adequate acceptance from the Government.
I stress again that it is not simply the chap with one or two vehicles just starting up in business. As the Bill stands, it is much more than that. It is established companies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has rightly said. We believe that the other tests are adequate and this is not. This is excessive. It blurs the issue between quantity and quality control.

The Parliamentary Secretary was not on the Committee at the time this matter came up. We had hoped to have a new argument. However, we have merely had the old arguments and reasons trotted out again. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My reading of the Clause, having come new to it, is that every operator, immediately the Bill is passed, will have to apply for this licence and. whether he has the biggest company in the world, he will still be counted as a new operator and have to give details.

Mr. Webster: In the course of time, yes. I would urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 278.

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[9.12 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Harris, Frederie (Croydon, N.W.)


Allason, Jamos (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Astor, John
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Awdry, Daniel
Currie, G. B. H.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hastings, Stephen


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hay, John


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Heseltine, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Higgins., Terence L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph



Besselt, Petor
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Bitten, John
Dougtes-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hordern, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Body, Richard
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-uport-Tyne,N.)
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Errington, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Braine, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Fair, John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fisher, Nigel
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bruce-Gardyme, J.
Foster, Sir John
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kershaw, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lambton, Viscount


Campbell, Gordon
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carlisle, Mart
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Ceoffrey (Sut'n' C'dfield)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clark, Henry
Grieve, Percy
Lubbock, Eric


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Mac Arthur, lan


Corfield, F. V.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackenzie, Alasrlair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Costain, A. P
Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain




McMaster, Stanley
Percival, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Macmilllan, Maurice (Farnham)
Peyton, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maddan, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Maginnis, John E.
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Teeling, Sir William


Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Temple, John M.


Maude, Angus
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Francis
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Webster, David


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Royle, Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Murton, Oscar
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Neave, Airey
Scott, Nicholas
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Sharpies, Richard
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodnutt, Mark


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Worsley, Marcus



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
wylie, N. R.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Pardoe, John
Stainton, Keith



Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crawshaw, Richard
Cinsburg, David


Albu, Austin
Cronin, John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gregory, Arnold


Alldritt, Walter
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Allen, Scholefield
Dalyell, Tarn
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gunter, Fit. Hn. R. J.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hamling, William


Bames, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Hartnan, William


Barnett, Joel
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph


Beaney, Alan
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)



Betlce, Cyril
Delargy, Hugh
Haseldine, Norman


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dell, Edmund
Hattersiey, Roy


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Hazelil, Bert


Bidwelt, Sydney
Dewar, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Bishop, E. s.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Henig, Stanley


Blackburn, F.
Dickens, James
Hilton, W. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dobson, Ray
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, Ktown)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Boyden, James
Dunnett, Jack

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exe er)
Howell, Denis (Small Health)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th A C'b'e)
Howie, W.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Hoy, James


Brooks, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Huckfield Leslie


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Edwards William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, John
Hughes Emrys (Ayrshire S)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
English, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ewor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Faulds, Andrew
Hunter Adam


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fenryhough, E.
Hynd, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Jackson, Co, n (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Camichael Neil
Foley, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones Lewis
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara
Ford, Ben
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Chapman, Donald
Forrester, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Coleman, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Conlan, Bernard
Gaipern, Sir Myer
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gardner, Tony
Judd, Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Garrett, W. E.
Kelley, Richard




Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Lawson, George
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Leadbitter, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sheldon, Robert


Ledger, Ron
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Lee, John (Reading)
Murray, Albert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Neal, Harold
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Newens, Stan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Norwood, Christopher
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oakes, Gordon
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Lipton, Marcus
Ogden, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Lomas, Kenneth
O'Malley, Brian
Slater, Joseph


Loughlin, Charles
Oram, Albert E.
Small, William


Luard, Evan
Orme, Stanley
Snow, Julian


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


McCann, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


MacColl, James
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


MacDermot, Niall
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Swain, Thomas


Macdonald, A. H.
Paget, R. T.
Swingler, Stephen


McGuire, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Park, Trevor
Tinn, James


Mackie, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tomney, Frank


Mackintosh, John P.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Urwin, T. W.


Maclennan, Robert
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Macmillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


MacPherson, Malcolm
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Weitzman, David


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wellbeloved, James


Manuel, Archie
Probert, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Mapp, Charles
Randall, Harry
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Rankin, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marquand, David
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Marsh, Rt. Mn. Richard
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Christopher
Richard, Ivor
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Winnick, David


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Robinson, W.O.J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Woof, Robert


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Yates, Victor


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roebuck, Roy



Molloy, William
Rose, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Neil McBride and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, in Amendment No. 214, in page 81, line 29 to leave out 'of operating vehicles of any description' and insert:
'in the course of which vehicles of any description are operated'.
This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause as it stands would appear to exclude the requirement for information to be given on experience of former "C" licence operation, which would obviously be necessary. This Amendment makes that requirement quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 215, in page 82, line 9 after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.
During the Committee stage the Minister indicated that this Amendment was likely to be accepted. I have just received a communication from him indicating that there are difficulties about it, but this will give him an opportunity to accept the

Amendment if the Government are able to do so.

Mr. Carmichael: The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that the licensing authority must act reasonably in specifying the form in which the information to be given to it must be supplied. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) has said, this was discussed at length in Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to consider the point.
It was pointed out in Committee that the word "reasonably" appeared in subsection (4) and ought, therefore, to be in subsection (5) also. But, on further consideration my hon. Friend the Minister of State feels that the parallel is false. In the former instance, the word relates to the information which a licensing authority may ask for—for example, it must be such as it may "reasonably" require for the discharge


of its duties. This is a sensible and desirable limitation to preclude any possibility of irrelevant and unnecessary information being demanded.
But to require the authority to be reasonable in specifying a form is quite a different matter. Such an Amendment seems totally unnecessary. Licensing authorities are appointed by the Minister and are persons of commonsense and integrity and would not normally act unreasonably. There is in any case a safeguard against their doing so in this connection by the Minister's power to give them general directions on the exercise of their functions under Clause 55(2). Licensing authorities consult together informally at frequent intervals and in practice a common form for all areas would be drawn up.
With this explanation of the safeguard, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although my hon. Friend considered this, it was found that it would not be possible to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 216, in page 82, line 9, at end insert:
'and shall not be made public without the agreement of the applicant'.
We come now to one of the points in the Bill where there is a dilemma because information is required by the licensing authorities—reasonably so—in order that they can check on safety and maintenance and ensure that vehicles are kept up to the standards which we all think necessary. At the same time, however, some of the information provided may, if made public, be damaging or embarrassing comercially to those providing it.
It must be remembered—because in dealing with an earlier Amendment the Government seemed to be ignoring it— that this part of the Bill does not just refer to the road haulage industry. Many more vehicles will come under the licensing system because they are under three and a half tons plated weight or thirty hundredweight unladen weight which belong to businesses such as those of traders, manufacturers and farmers. Thus, this provision will be concerned not only with road haulage but with those who use vehicles for taking their own goods from place to place.
It is, therefore, important that the question about the information of a commercial nature which they provide the licensing authorities being made public should be considered. The objective of the Amendment is to ensure that this information will not be made public without the agreement of the applicants. Under subsection (4,b) we have been debating the question of demand for services. We wanted that provision to come out but it is now staying in the Bill, for the moment, and such information could be valuable to a competitor. In subsection (4,g) there are provisions relating to financial resources and here again is information which, if made public, might be of commercial interest to rivals.
Again I emphasise that I am not talking about the road haulage industry. The sort of business concerned could have nothing to do with that industry at all. If the system of quality licensing is to be fair and as acceptable as possible to everyone whose vehicles will be subjected to it, we must ensure that they regard the system without apprehension and anxiety.
9.30 p.m.
When this point was raised in Committee, the Government acknowledged that there was a difficulty. They told us that they were consulting the Council on Tribunals to see how this question could be tackled. In Amendments, we have suggested various points at which the wording of this Amendment would go a long way to dealing with the situation. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to tell us how far they have got in their consultations with the Council on Tribunals and that they can accept this Amendment and similar Amendments in other places in the Bill.

Mr. Swingler: On 2nd April, I gave an undertaking in Committee that we would consult the Council on Tribunals on the question of confidential information given to licensing authorities in connection with applications and the holding of hearings in camera. I regret that our conversations with the Council have not been completed in time to bring forward an Amendment at this stage. But there is broad agreement on suitable arrangements for hearings in camera and for safeguarding the confidentiality of information. It is important that the detailed


arrangements should be absolutely correct and in accordance with what the Council considers proper.
Therefore, in fulfilment of our undertaking, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to wait until we produce detailed arrangements in another place for ensuring the protection of confidentiality.

Mr. Peter Walker: We are most grateful to the Minister of State for giving consideration to this matter. Naturally, we look forward with interest to the Amendment to be moved in another place.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60

DECISION ON APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATORS' LICENCES

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move Amendment No. 218, in page 84, line 1, to leave out 'all or any' and insert ' either or both '.

Mr. Speaker: We are taking at the same time Amendments No. 219, page 84, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 220, page 84, line 14, at end insert: ' but this condition shall only be applied if the applicant so requests'.
No. 238, page 88, leave out lines 6 to 9.
No. 240, page 89, line 36, leave out from 'section' to end of line 40.
No. 241, page 89, line 45, leave out from 'direct' to ' that' in line 2 on page 90.
No. 311, page 109, line 45, leave out from 'which' to end of line 5 on page 110 and insert:
goods are to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as carried for hire or reward and the circumstances in which goods are to be treated for those purposes as carried by any person for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him ".

Mr. Carmichael: This group of Amendments arises from the undertaking given in Committee by the Minister of State to consider again whether the vestigial distinction between hire and reward and own-account operation could be dropped.

Upon reconsideration, Ministers have decided that this step should be taken. As the Minister of State explained in Committee, the intention all along has been that the power to limit an operator's licence to own-account carriage should be used only on safety grounds—for example, where the licensing authority thought that an operator's background was such that to allow him to engage in public haulage might endanger the financial resources available to him and hence prejudice the provision of adequate maintenance for the vehicles. But the Bill already provides adequate sanctions against this kind of behaviour. Under Clause 65, one or more vehicles can be suspended from an operator's licence as a disciplinary measure, or the whole licence can be suspended or even revoked altogether. The power to limit licences to own-account operation adds little or nothing to these powers whilst presenting a possible enforcement problem.
Amendment No. 219 is the main Amendment in the group. It deletes the power in Clause 60(4)(c) for a licensing authority to grant an operator's licence subject to the limitation that it authorises only the carriage of goods on own-account. It was also proposed independently by the Opposition.
Amendment No. 218 is a paving Amendment in Clause 60(4). With the removal of paragraph (c) there are only two limitations or modifications which a licensing authority may impose in granting a licence.
Amendment No. 238 is consequential. It removes the provision that a licence may be varied by the imposition or removal of a limitation to own-account work.
Amendments Nos. 240 and 241 are also consequential. They remove references in Clause 65 to the contravention of a limitation to own-account work and to the power of a licensing authority to impose such a limitation as a disciplinary measure.

Mr. G. Campbell: We on this side of the House are glad that the Government have, on consideration, agreed to meet the proposal which we made about this in Committee, and to remove the distinction which there was in the Bill between those who were carrying goods for hire


and reward and those who were carrying their own goods on their own account. The Minister's speech was not very inspiring in saying all this, but its content was none the less acceptable.
We think it is important that in this Bill there should be no suggestion that a carrier who is carrying his own goods as part of his own business should in any way be a second-class carrier. The whole purpose of the Bill is to do away with the C licence and to ensure that vehicles which pass the quality licensing tests can carry goods for hire and reward, as well as vehicles of the road haulage industry. Therefore, we are glad that the Government have accepted this point and we hope that they will adhere to it in other parts of the Bill, because if operators under the Bill satisfy the quality licensing requirements in this Part of the Bill they should be able to do both jobs, both carriage for hire and reward and the carriage of own-account goods. We, therefore, welcome the Government's considered views and their change of mind on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 219, in page 84, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Carmichael.]

Clause 61

CONDITIONS AS TO TRANSPORT MANAGERS' LICENCES

Mr. Awdry: I beg to move Amendment No. 542, in page 84, line 22, to leave out from the beginning to 'on' in line 23 and insert:
(1) In every licence granted by a licensing authority to an operator who at any one time has three or more goods vehicles for use for carriage of goods under section 56 of this Act.
Clause 61 relates to transport managers' licences. In Standing Committee, because of the Guillotine, we had no opportunity at all to discuss this important new concept of transport managers' licences. Indeed, I started to move this important Amendment in Standing Committee, I spoke for about two and a half minutes—and that was the end of that; and no one has yet heard from the Government very much about this new con-

cept, and so we hope that this debate will give an opportunity for both sides of the House to hear a little bit of how the Government think this will work.
I remind the House of what the White Paper said about transport managers, and I quote paragraph 48:
It is the ultimate aim that applicants for a transport manager's licence should have to produce evidence of their professional competence by passing appropriate examinations, and discussions as to how progress might be made towards this objective will be started with all interested organisations. Once a system of examinations is in force the Government hope to be able to hand over the administration of transport managers' licensing to a separate professional body organised and supported by the industry itself.
We should like the Minister to tell us how those discussions are going on with the organisations, because we have not heard anything of them so far. What reactions has the Minister had from the organisations? We have received many representations from industrialists that it is not really necessary to have a transport manager in very small fleets. Most of them are thinking of fleets of, say, half a dozen vehicles. The industrialists who come to see us suggest that for the small fleets it is not necessary to go through all the paraphernalia of a transport manager.
We appreciate that the Government will probably be a little reluctant if we put down an Amendment limiting the requirement to, say, a fleet of six, so we have said in this Amendment that for fleets under three vehicles—which is a pretty small fleet and means only one or two vehicles—it is not necessary to have a transport manager, with a transport manager's licence and so on.
I do not know whether hon. Members who were not on the Transport Bill Committee appreciate that under this Bill a small farmer in, let us say, Cornwall, who operates his one vehicle on 20 acres, has to get a transport manager's licence. We do not know how difficult and sophisticated the examination will be, whether it will be written or oral, but it will need to be a fairly simple examination for some farmers. What I seriously suggest is that for fleets of one or two vehicles it really is not necessary to go through the complications of having a transport manager.
This is a particularly responsible Amendment, because we have also provided for the maintenance point. Of course, we on this side appreciate that what the Government are trying to do is to improve the maintenance of vehicles, so that in Amendment No. 541, which is being taken at the same time, we have said:
Where an operator has less than three goods vehicles for use for carriage of goods under section 56 of this Act, the licensing authority shall be informed of the place or places where the maintenance of the authorised vehicles will be carried out, in accordance with section 60(2)(d) of this Act, and of the person or persons responsible for this service.
So whatever else the Minister may say in replying to this debate, he cannot say that we have lost sight of the question of maintenance, because we have deliberately provided for it in our Amendment.
We are trying here to save unnecessary bureaucracy and unnecessary red tape. As I said earlier, we support the concept of quality licensing. We support the concept of transport managers. We are not complaining about that. We merely say that it is a little ludicrous if there has to be a transport manager and an examination for a fleet of two lorries or even one lorry. I hope that when the Minister replies—and we are very glad that he is going to reply on this Amendment—he will tell us a little more about the Government's ideas on this concept. Perhaps he will also tell us what sort of examinations the transport managers are going to have to take. Are they going to have a written examination, are they going to have an oral examination or, to begin with, will everybody be granted a transport manager's licence automatically? If so—and I really suspect that in the early stages that is exactly what will happen—then that is an even stronger argument for not bringing in this provision for fleets of one or two vehicles.
We are trying to save a lot of extra paper work which is going to be caused by this whole procedure. I repeat that we are not against the concept as we know it. We have not been told much about it, and perhaps we shall hear a bit more, but we are not against the concept of a transport manager's licence. But for a fleet of one or two vehicles it is just madness to have to set up all this bureaucracy.

Mr. James Davidson: I rise to support this Amendment, and Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 which are being taken with it. We are not opposed to the principle of quality licensing, which is basically designed for greater safety. Part of the quality licensing system involves the appointment by every operator of goods vehicles of a transport manager, whose purpose is apparently to be the individual against whom prosecutions for violations of the provisions of the Bill can be instituted. The transport manager has the same responsibility in connection with the quantity licensing system, to which we are of course opposed. There appears to be no advantage to be gained from having such managers as no difficulty has occurred in the past in bringing actions for violations of existing safety regulations against the person responsible for the operation of a vehicle. In the case of a corporate body or an individual owning a lorry or a number of lorries and employing one or a number of drivers, he has a clear responsibility for the maintenance of vehicles in a fit condition to prevent undue hazard.
9.45 p.m.
Many representations have been received to the effect that it is unnecessary to have transport managers for every little fleet. The N.F.U., the Transport Users' Association and the Road Haulage Association have suggested, for example, that transport managers should not be required for individuals, companies or partnerships operating two or less vehicles.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield rose—

Mr. Davidson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to come in after I have spoken—

Mr. Huckfield: I wish only to point out that the hon. Gentleman is reading his speech.

Mr. Davidson: I should like us to get through as many of these Amendments as possible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
Amendment No. 228 suggests that a reasonable compromise would be five or less.
The important question concerns the qualifications which will be needed for


a transport manager to obtain an operator's licence. The Government have indicated that, initially, almost anyone will be granted a transport manager's licence if he is employed by a company or individual. This seems to be bad, for two reasons. First, it may force employees to accept responsibilities that they do not understand and for which they are not qualified. It could literally be the managing director's shorthand typist. The second objection is that, if the system is to have any meaning, clearly the individual concerned should have proper access to vehicles, records of maintenance and at least some experience of driving such vehicles, especially in the case of large fleets of lorries. It may be that he should have some understanding of the law and of the penalties which may result from a violation by a driver theoretically under his control.
Unless the law can be enforced properly and unless the Minister is satisfied that a virtual army of motor mechanics is available, this provision should not be introduced into the Bill.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Well read, sir.

Mr. Leadbitter: This matter is of vital importance, and I should be unhappy to see the inclusion of provisions in the Bill which could end up by being ludicrous.
I think that the principle of transport managers' licences is already established and accepted. However, to require a licence for the operator or owner of one or two vehicles might be to test the administration a little too hard. In view of that, can my right hon. Friend say whether the provisions in Clause 61(6) could be invoked to meet the objections which have been raised? In order to assist the House, I will read the operative words:
The Minister may by regulations—
(a) modify the requirements of subsections (1) to (4) of this section in any respect, or substitute for any of them such other requirements relating to transport managers' licences as may be specified in the regulations ".
It occurs to me that my right hon. Friend may be able to meet this difficulty by means of regulations. I suspect that the Amendment goes too far and that experience should tell us that a manager's licence might not be required for a person

who owns six vehicles or even 10. I think that this is a matter where experience will lead to the making of regulations to meet the problem. I hope that the Minister, in the light of experience, will be able to indicate whether subsection (6) and the power to make regulations will be used to determine any problem about a manager's licence.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The White Paper, in mentioning appropriate examinations and a separate professional body at some later stage, must mean that this concept is intended to apply to those people and organisations which are in the road haulage transport business. Yet as the Clause stands it would seem that anyone with a vehicle needing an operator's licence must have a transport manager. I have discovered with a shock, having heard the Clause explained, that apparently I shall have to become a transport manager.
Any farmer who has one vehicle needing an operator's licence will need a transport manager. Hon. Members can think of a fanner with one vehicle of less than 30 cwt. unladen weight and using the road a lot. There is also the tax-exempted vehicle which, by agreement with the local authority, can use the public roads for not more than six miles a week, because it must cross the road from field to field. It may be a substantial vehicle doing a lot of haulage on the farm.
I apprehend that an operator's licence will be needed for such vehicles and consequently a transport manager's licence. This is multiplying bureaucracy. I must declare an interest. I am the possessor of a second-hand septic tank emptier, a suction vehicle, purchased from my local authority, which enables me to avoid polluting certain ditches with silage effluent and to empty a few septic tanks on my farm. We must occasionally cross roads and therefore we have an exemption licence.
There may be many farmers in this position. Are we expected to apply for a special licence, and who will be the transport manager of a second-hand septic-tank emptier? Are we elevating this task into a profession? It must be nonsense. It represents a classic error of Labour Governments—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the: hon. Gentleman to make his "septic" point.

Mr. Hill: It is a classic error of Socialist Governments, not septic Governments, in that what might be called a very Socialist measure is brought in and there is no de minimis rule, and therefore one is saddled with the most unfortunate consequences. One classic example is the Capital Gains Tax; now we have had to introduce a de minimis rule. Please let us have it in this case, otherwise there may be great resentment and a great deal of wasted work, and in the end the laugh will be on hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I support the Amendment because a number of my constituents have approached me about the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) pointed out, farmers are particularly worried about this provision. This concern is felt by many small haulage operators, particularly in rural areas, and by farmers and others operating just one or two lorries which are driven, in the main, by members of one family and are owned by closely controlled companies. They do not know what burdens are being placed on them. These people have approached me with great concern as to the way in which the provision will be implemented. Will they need to take classes and be given instruction? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should take this seriously because these matters which are worrying many people were not debated in Committee upstairs.
I have been asked to raise the matter in the House and this is the only chance I have of doing so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on with it."] I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite will not listen to what my hon. Friends are saying. They are trying to gag us even now. They hope that we will not be able to tell our constituents of the burdens being placed on them.
This is an eminently reasonable Amendment which must be accepted if we are not to add to bureaucracy. Amendment No. 541, which is being discussed at the same time, makes it clear that we are not attempting to do anything to spoil

the provision which demands that vehicles must be well maintained. We have no desire to destroy the purpose or spirit of quality licensing.

Mr. Marsh: I hesitate to intervene in view of the pent up confusion which hon. Gentlemen opposite still appear ready to pour into our midst. It is important to get exactly clear what is intended in these provisions. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not understood the Bill, particularly since my experience with the road hauliers and Transport Traders Association has been that the trade fully understands it. I do not understand the purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite, unless they merely desire to keep the debate going. [Interruption.]

Mr. Peter Walker: Unlike the road hauliers, hon. Members, as a result of the Guillotine, are not being allowed to discuss the matter adequately.

Mr. Marsh: I suggest that the whole of this part of this magnificent Measure was sufficiently clear for anybody to understand quite easily. Nevertheless, I will answer the questions that have been asked, as there is obviously a wide area of misunderstanding.
The first purpose of the Clause is to ensure that vehicles on our roads are properly maintained and are in a safe condition. A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have made it clear that there is no dispute about the principle which we are attempting to achieve. Nobody disputes that there are numbers of casualties—accidents and deaths—caused as a direct result of badly maintained vehicles. The numbers are quite large, although I do not want to exaggerate the position. This is accepted on both sides and we therefore agree with the purpose of the provision, which is to ensure that these types of vehicle are properly maintained and properly operated.
It is at this point that hon. Gentlemen opposite begin to argue about numbers. It is a superb piece of logic, since they presume that if, for example, six dangerous vehicles are owned by one owner, then those six vehicles should be subject to proper control. On the other hand, they argue that if two owners own


three vehicles each, the same six vehicles should be excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Peter Walker indicated dissent.

Mr. Marsh: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will explain exactly what his hon. Friends mean, since the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) argued the case for the system of de minimis to operate so that if an owner operated less than a certain number of vehicles he would not be liable to the provisions of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Awdry: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is trying so hard to mislead himself. An operator with one vehicle must have an operator's licence. He will, therefore, be subject to the Bill. We say that it is not necessary to oblige him to have a manager's licence as well.

Mr. Marsh: That intervention proves that it is a mistake to give way. I was coming to that point and was about to explain that hon. Gentlemen opposite have misunderstood the whole concept of the transport manager. He does not have to be an additionally employed person. To suggest that would be an absurdity.
10.0 p.m.
It would be absurd to say that a man operating two vehicles must employ a professionally qualified person from outside to manage those two vehicles. The transport manager is the person designated as being responsible for the operation and maintenance of the vehicle. This is just as necessary for one owner with 10 vehicles as it is for two sets of owners with five vehicles each. It is similarly necessary for the small fleet. The transport manager could be the same person as the operator of a small fleet. He might be the foreman or garage proprietor. It could be the operator himself. The Bill merely says that the person must be defined.
How are we to define these qualifications? They will vary acording to the extent of the applicant's responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman with his sewage tank or septic tank, or whatever it is—I do not know the technicalities of it—may require special qualifications for

its operation. But clearly the extent of the applicants' responsibilities will vary, because they will be differing jobs. One will not place upon the person who is held responsible for a very small number of vehicles the same responsibility that one would place upon a person responsible for very large fleets, because in fact he is doing a different sort of job.
How then does one arrive at what the qualifications are? It seemed to me the sensible way of doing this was to ask the industry. Therefore, what I have done is to circularise the industry and various organisations involved, who are, as far as I can see, on the whole not violently opposed to this. Most of them seem to be in favour of it once they recognise it is not intended that everybody should employ an additional man, and that what they have to do is to designate a person who is responsible. I have asked the industry, and that is why I have not detailed what the qualifications shall be, because I want the industry to tell me what it thinks the qualifications ought to be. When we have received advice from it I am in no doubt that we can produce a situation wherein we can ensure that every fleet, small or large, of vehicles has a person who has reached a particular approved standard in their maintenance and operation.
I find it very surprising, as I have on a number of occasions today, that the Opposition, with the important issues which they say they so desperately want to reach, find themselves incapable of understanding a section of this Bill. Whatever the criticism of the Bill may be—[Interruption] But this is the whole point. I joined the Committee after this Clause, and if it is crystal clear to me it is terrifying that the hon. Gentleman does not understand it now, and he has sat all the way through it. It has certainly been clear to all the interests I have spoken to on the Bill. As I understand it, the basic proposition is the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who on these occasions injects the highest level of argument into the debate. He said that all that he wanted was to be assured that this was not a nonsense. And it was a nonsense if anyone thought for one moment that we were going to require additional people, who would have to go,


to night school and take examinations, to be on the payroll to look after two or three vehicles. That was not the intention at all. I am only amazed that some hon. Gentlemen thought it could have been.

Mr. G. Campbell: When we had that very brief debate on the Clause in Committee, which was stopped after about three minutes, the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Power. He joined the Committee after we had had to leave the Clause, and it is clear from what he has said tonight that he has not even read the White Paper issued long before he began circulating information to the industries concerned.
All we had in the way of statements by the Government about this completely new concept of a transport manager's licence when we reached the matter in Committee and had our three minutes' discussion, which was then chopped off by the Guillotine, were the three paragraphs on page 13 of the White Paper, The Transport of Freight. One of the main points was that in smaller concerns the transport manager would often be the owner himself or one of the partners. That is why there has been a great deal of inquiry and doubt about how this would work in practice. The next paragraph says:
It is the ultimate aim that applicants for a transport manager's licence should have to produce evidence of their professional competence by passing appropriate exmina-tions …
Those concerned in trade and industry all over the country, whether farmers, manufacturers or traders have been concerned about when this would develop to a stage where a diploma was required or examinations were required. They have been much more concerned than the haulage industry, to which this is not a problem. It is used to this kind of question of safety and maintenance.
We have had very little chance of debating this. When we were able to discuss related matters in Committee we got on to this and simply got a word or two from the Government that it was their intention to hold consultations later on with the industry, and in five or 10 years work out some form of professional examinations. But we are dealing with the situation now. The quality licensing system is due to come in not very long

after the Bill is enacted. It will then be necessary for anyone running even a single lorry over 3½ tons plated weight or 30 cwts. unladen not only to have an operator's licence but also a transport manager's licence, either his own or that of someone in his employment. We are concerned about the problems of the next two or three years, which are concerning trade and industry throughout the country. They are not concerning them as much as the quantity licensing provisions, to which we shall come later, but they are concerned because of the lack of information at present.

Mr. Leadbitter: May I direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to c. 2393 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our Standing Committee proceedings. He might then accept that he was given an assurance in Committee by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, who said:
The whole purpose is that there should be somebody identifiable with the proper maintenance of the fleet, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 3rd April, 1968; c. 2393.]
The embellishments about qualifications and courses are quite irrelevant.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman's intervention has relevance to a fleet, and a fleet does not consist of one or two vehicles. That is what the Amendment is about. We are dealing with the situation where someone operating a business has one or two vehicles which are eligible for quality licensing. If the Government carry through the system which we understand they are devising in the Bill they will have to acquiesce, when the Bill is enacted and quality licensing comes into effect, in a situation where the businessman or farmer with one vehicle is himself the transport manager. He will then have to have an operator's licence and the transport manager's licence. There can be no question at that stage of his having to have qualifications or pass examinations as mentioned here.
We understand that, but the question arises as to the whole concept of the transport manager's licence in the coming years in a situation in which somebody has to be qualified. It was stated in the third paragraph that there would be strict disciplinary powers against the operator. The White Paper stated that in serious cases of mismanagement the


holder of the transport manager's licence in the organisation would be responsible. These are all onerous matters relating to the transport manager's licence.
When the Bill comes into force, the Government will have to acquiesce in the situation that the farmer with the single vehicle will himself be the transport manager with a transport manager's licence. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that this is the position. But this does not make the vehicle any safer. The right hon. Gentleman pretended in a facile way that this Amendment suggested that two vehicles would be safer than six vehicles. But that is not what we are suggesting. We are saying that if you make a farmer who owns and operates one vehicle the transport manager, although he may be a good farmer, he may know nothing about vehicles. The more important point, which is dealt with by our second Amendment, is that there should be available to that farmer proper facilities for maintenance, rather than that he should have some bogus form of transport manager's licence.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman makes clear the difference between us. He said that a particular farmer may be a man who knows nothing about the maintenance of vehicles. All the Bill says is that somebody must be defined who does know something about maintenance. This does not seem unreasonable.

Mr. Campbell: This is becoming more interesting than I thought. A large number of farmers will not be expert mechanics or have experience of motor vehicle maintenance, who will be most conscientious to make sure that the vehicles are properly serviced and are not allowed on the roads unless they are in a safe condition. The farmer needs to have proper arrangements to service his vehicles.

Mr. Marsh: I make quite clear that such a person could designate a garage proprietor, who could be the transport manager purely in title for a number of other people.

Mr. Campbell: This most interesting point was never made in Committee. The

garage proprietor at a garage three or four miles away may be unwilling to take on the task of transport manager. The transport manager, as described by Government spokesmen and as set out in the Bill, will be the person against whom disciplinary action is taken. He has to have control over the vehicle and decide whether it is fit to go out on the roads. He is definitely responsible for seeing that the vehicle on the road is capable of carrying out its duties.
That is not a job which a local garage proprietor will willingly undertake. He could be responsible for servicing the vehicle and for handing it back to the operator, but he cannot be responsible for what might happen in the ensuing six weeks as to the way in which the vehicle is used on the road, or for the situation if the brakes for some reason deteriorate. It is the farmer's decision that the lorry goes out on the road to carry out some task.
The Government previously have said that it must be the farmer himself, or an employee in the business of the operator, who must be transport manager for the purpose of the licence. If this is not so, the Minister has introduced something quite new. If it is to be a local garage proprietor, this opens a completely new vista, and certainly does not agree with what was said in the White Paper or what has been said in the very few moments that we have had to discuss the subject in Committee.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: This is a very serious matter, because if the local garage proprietor is to be asked to be responsible for any action at law that may be brought against him under the terms of this Bill— this is what we are saying—what does the hon. Gentleman imagine will be the sort of charges likely to be made by that garage proprietor to undertake a very heavy and even dangerous responsibility?

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Member who with his great discernment has seized upon this point. He, too, heard what went on in Committee in the brief discussion we had, and realises that it is one thing for a garage proprietor to be responsible for servicing a vehicle and to hand it back saying that it is all right for the road, but it is quite


another thing for him to take on the responsibility for the vehicle over the next three months.
I hops that this will be clarified. If the Minister is right it is certainly a change from the concept as understood, and it brings out the point that the industry which will be affected does not know of this because there has not been the chance to discuss this concept of a transport manager's licence. The statements that the Government have made, in the White Paper and elsewhere, have made it clear that this is something quite new, to start from small beginnings with no qualifications needed, handed out for the asking—it will have to be in the case of one man operating one vehicle, because he has to be his transport manager as well as the holder of the operator's licence. Then it is said this will grow into something requiring qualifications and examinations. Of course the industry wants to know more. Of course it was disappointed that the Minister, although he may be consulting it, has not given proper time for discussion.
We hope that the Minister will see the sense of not requiring that there should be a transport manager when there are only one or two vehicles eligible for quantity licensing. The Government have made considerable changes, permitting greater flexibility. There is provision whereby two vehicles of a large concern, widely separated, can be looked after by one transport manager at a larger base. Why cannot the Government continue to introduce flexibility and accept this Amendment which would make it a great deal easier for this new concept to get started and be accepted, not for the road, haulage industry only, but for industry throughout the land?

Mr. Mapp: I have listened carefully to the debate, because I may be the only Member who has had the daily responsibility for the turn-round of a fleet of 200 to 300 cars. I would like the Minister to be patient about this problem. Both sides of the House have broken the principle. I have had the responsibility many years ago for looking after a fleet. What we; are trying to do now is extend this across the industry.
It has come up as a side issue from the farming community. I see their point. But the first essential of maintaining

a fleet (a) roadworthy, and (b) conforming to the law of the land, requires the person doing the work, preferably daily and certainly weekly, to have such executive responsibility to deal with the driver's hours and to ensure that he makes such remarks in his log book as will enable the executive to carry out his responsibilities. He must also have regard to servicing and take into account the daily incidents that happen with a fleet operation.
If the Minister, in his consultations with the industry, does not take these daily problems into account, he will be imposing considerable difficulties on large and small undertakings, whether concerning farmers or others.
Clause 61 repeats on two or three occasions "the person so specified". I appreciate that in subsection (5) there is some arrangement whereby, if the person so specified has left that employment or is away due to sickness or goodness knows what, there is some flexibility. It is not the person who needs specifying; it is the post and the function in the firm or the undertaking that must be allied with the responsibility of making sure that the fleet is not only properly serviceable, but that the people who operate it day by day have that responsibility.
Clause 61 also speaks of the separate areas and, in effect, the separate garages of one major firm. That is all very well. It may be that Smith, Brown & Robinson have a large fleet with eight or nine different operating points, but the Clause means that a traffic manager must be at each depot. It does not mean that the point of responsibility in a large firm is three or four stages removed from the managing director; it has to be at the depot.
I beg the Minister to take this into account—particularly what I have said about the emphasis being on the point of responsibility rather than the person. When one appoints to that job one points out what that person's responsibilities are.
One other point disturbed me considerably. The Minister contemplates that a garage could undertake this responsibility. I do not know whether the Minister will reiterate that after careful thought. One cannot hive out to a garage the responsibility of maintaining a fleet operation. The discipline required


in running a fleet involves personnel, daily work, and a feeling that the fleet is good, or it has to be good. I do not know how one can hive that out to a garage, because it will have a vested interest in another direction. If the firm is large enough to have its own garaging facilities it will be mechanical in mind and will not have the requisite authority to deal with the illegal hours of drivers.
I may have said something helpful to the Minister. Candidly, I believe that

these things have to be said. I hope that the Minister, in regulations later, will bear in mind these hard daily prosaic problems of trying to run a fleet in the spirit of the Bill, and at the same time realise that in naming persons one can have extremely cumbersome machinery. Concerning offences in the magistrates' court, what is looked for is the point of real responsibility in the firm. The individual is secondary. Would that right person be caught for this offence? This is what the courts will be interested in.

Mr. Peter Mills: The Minister's speech was one of the most arrogant I have heard for a long time. We are representing constituents who are worried about this point, and he did nothing to explain the difficulties which may confront them. It is no good his raising the smokescreen of bluff, saying that we have not read the Bill or do not understand it. This is pure arrogance and I do not see why we should put up with it. If he wants the Clause to work, he should allay these fears of ordinary people, small farmers and smallholders— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who have been listened to quietly should listen to others quietly.

Mr. Mills: These are the fears of small businessmen, builders and many others, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to speak again to allay these fears.
I support the Amendment. To apply this provision to the interests which I have at heart, those of the farmers, is stupid, costly, Socialist nonsense. One cannot expect farmers, who are already burdened enough, to do more and more examinations and investigations and fill out more and more forms. This should be reconsidered. If the Minister cannot do it now, perhaps what it involves for these people can be fully and carefully explained at some other time.

Mr. Marsh: There is clearly a difference between the two sides on this issue. There is a potential danger which is recognised by all in the public haulage industry. I do not exaggerate the extent. In 1966 and 1967, roadside spot checks of 142,831 vehicles revealed that 55,695, or 38·9 per cent., were defective—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many were B.R.S.?"]—I hope that we can keep the debate on its previous higher level— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate by running commentary.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: How many were serious defects and how many were minor?

Mr. Marsh: The number of immediate prohibitions of these vehicles was 12,863,

or 91 per cent. immediately taken off the road. This is not a situation which anyone in the House can view with equanimity. It is not true of the vast majority of people who operate these vehicles, but there is a problem of serious proportions which we want to solve. So we say that all such vehicles should be under the control of someone responsible for their operation and maintenances.
The argument behind the Amendment is very simple. The Opposition say, "We agree with what you are trying to do, but feel that you should not apply it to the small fleets of vehicles." But those small fleets with one to five vehicles number 69,100, or 34 per cent. of the total. If we take the one to three vehicles, the groups being excluded here, we are talking about 38,800 vehicles—20 per cent.— against the kind of defective vehicle figures we are discussing here, can it really be argued that we should exclude that 20 per cent. of the traffic concerned from these regulations?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the figures for one to three vehicles. This Amendment would apply to one to two vehicles, and therefore the figures he has given do not apply to this Amendment. I wonder if he has the figures which apply to this Amendment. This is not an argument as to a farmer having a particular licence.

Mr. Marsh: We are still on the same argument. Perhaps it is not five vehicles, or three. Perhaps it is two. This is 15,700—rather a lot of vehicles. We are saying, of course, we want to have a sensible introduction, and this is what we have done. The Bill is not set out on the basis of some Ministerial view as to how this should be arranged. We have asked the industry to tell us. They are at liberty to do so; they are invited to do so and they are willing to co-operate and to let us know how they see it being operated.
A great deal has been made of the suggestion that one could use a garage in this field. The hon. Gentleman expressed surprise that this could mean a garage proprietor. That was a point I made before some hon. Gentlemen opposite emerged. I said earlier in my speech that there will be varying qualifications for


various people. It would be absurd to put on a farmer with two vehicles the same responsibilities as are being placed on a large fleet owner. That is the kind of arrangement we want to secure, with different qualifications for persons with differing experience. There is no reason at all why the functions cannot be split. There is no reason at all why a designated garage, any more than happens at present with compulsory testing, could not be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles if that was the requirement or wish of the owner.
The basic proposition—and I finish on this because there is a total difference of philosophy between us—is that we start from the proposition that there are a large number of heavy vehicles on the road which are potentially dangerous. They are not, in the main, vehicles of the big and well-known operators.
There is another aspect to be borne in mind. When we find in one year, in spot checks alone, that we get 38·929 per cent. of defective vehicles, 9 per cent. of which are immediately taken off the road, then hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will realise that there is here a problem to be solved; and when the small fleets constitute such a very large proportion of the total number of these vehicles—and for the reasons to which I have already referred, on the whole, the bigger owners tend to be those with the good safety records—it seems to me extraordinary that the Opposition should say these safety regulations, while good in principle and good in relation to the larger fleets, should not be applied to others. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) decides to divide the House on that I have no doubt my hon. Friends will be pleased to.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Gentleman said that the function could be split and that the maintenance could be handed to a garage proprietor. Did he intend to say that that person could then become the transport manager, which earlier he described as a highly technical title, and that the operating responsibility would remain with someone who was not the transport manager? If so, what would

be the purpose of the operation? Would it not be strange that the transport manager should be disconnected from the operation of the vehicles? Could there be a multiple transport manager of several different firms?

Mr. Marsh: He would have a licence and see that the licence was fulfilled. To that extent the function can be split. I do not see any difficulty in holding the garage responsible. We accept that something should be done. Hon. Members opposite should say if they think it should not or could not be done. We shall circulate all the interested bodies and obtain their views on the best way of doing it.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am very sorry that the Minister has taken the attitude he has taken because he must realise that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not share his enthusiasm for this concept on the basis of which it would be operated for one or two vehicles. The speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) brought out a very valid point. We have always supported the concept of transport managers licences. I support it because I consider that it would be a useful measure to raise the standards of transport management in this country, and this is a very important factor in improving the safety record.
I therefore looked upon this as a way of appointing people who would have responsibility for running fleets with considerable technical ability. The White Paper said that it would require a professional examination, and I welcome that trend. Now we discover that the owner of one vehicle could have an operator's licence and a transport manager's licence, or even that this should go to a garage, which may be a big multiple garage. Presumably it would be in the name of an individual, not of a company. Presumably it could be Bill Bloggins, one of the mechanics in the garage. What happens if he is transport manager to 15, 20 or 30 individuals? What happens if in this capacity, acting for Joe Smith, he violates his position as transport manager? Presumably he loses his licence as transport manager for all those who use the garage. Presumably they then use another garage hand and put his name on the licence.
The hon. Member for The Hartle-pools (Mr. Leadbitter) suggested that there could be transport managers licences for single vehicles. He recognised that the basic concept here would undermine the very objective which most of us want to achieve—high professional standards for transport managers. If a man owns one vehicle and decides to put in his own name as transport manager, is that the basis of qualification? This is not an attack on safety. If a person is the operator of one vehicle and allows it to go on the road badly maintained, the whole weight of the law should be against him.

Mr. Manuel: Not on the driver.

Mr. Walker: I agree. Unless the driver is substantially responsible, it should not be on the driver.
If one is the owner of a vehicle which is operated on behalf of one's business, one feels the full weight of the law if anything goes wrong. The whole quality licensing system is based on trying to get better standards of maintenance, which is why we all support it. But to say that owners of single vehicles not only have to have operators' licences but transport managers' licences as well is a mockery of democracy and defeats the whole purpose.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman knows well enough—he has spoken often about it—what the effect of a defective lorry can be in causing accidents. Who is to be charged with allowing a lorry to be defective? This provision links the responsibility with the transport manager.

Mr. Walker: Under this system, if the owner of a single vehicle went to a multiple garage he could have a motor mechanic there as his transport manager.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel indicated assent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman thinks this an absurd idea, but nevertheless that is what could happen. Therefore, presumably the person to sue will be the mechanic. That sort of thing is not what we believed the Government had in mind.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Has my hon. Friend considered the full beauty of the Minister's last refinements

—that the operator might hold a transport manager's licence himself and delegate responsibility for maintenance to a local garage?

Mr. Walker: The more one thinks of this concept applying to owners of single vehicles or of two vehicles, the more absurd it becomes. We are right in our Amendment. The Minister is obviously committed to voting against it, but I hope that on reflection he will see that it is sensible and reasonable and that he will move an appropriate Amendment in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Peter Mahon.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I served five months on the Standing Committee and I have spoken as little as any other hon. Member who served on it with me. Since I have your kind permission to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to exercise my right as an hon. Member who served on that Committee diligently.
On innumerable occasions in Committee, it was said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Here we have the Opposition being as difficult, as obstructive, as obstinate and as intransigent as ever. When I say that, I say a great deal because hon. Members who were on the Committee know quite well how the Opposition behaved there. Their attitude once more, whether or not they are prepared to admit it, is irresponsible. The concept of the transport manager in this context has been looked at through the eyes of a farmer only—and that mainly a farmer who not only cannot maintain his vehicles but cannot manage his septic tanks either. I am sure that, on sober reflection, hon. Members opposite will realise that there are other considerations.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Mahon: Not just yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Just a moment. I am going to speak for only four minutes, and I will allow the hon. Member one minute of the four.
A large or small firm must have a traffic manager. That is implicit in the


Bill. My right hon. Friend tried desperately hard to say this. I will repeat with emphasis that there is none so blind as those who will not see. The traffic manager can be the owner if he is qualified to look after his vehicles; he can be an employee if he is qualified to look after the vehicles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Old-ham, East (Mr. Mapp) said we should designate the post. We do that eventually. We will have people highly qualified who can fit admirably into the post, where there are many vehicles. What my right hon. Friend is asking Parliament to do is to approach this position gently, and to be patient.

Mr. Hill: Would the hon. Member not realise that the confusion tonight is between qualifications and liability? I am not saying a farmer should not be liable for maintenance, but simply that he should be relieved of all this paraphernalia of having to appoint himself as transport manager. That has nothing to do with liability. That remains.

Mr. Mahon: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. What I am saying is that the good farmer—and there are here tonight vested interests in farming—is not necessarily a good mechanic, and he has to be safeguarded, safeguarded against himself, safeguarded against being brought to book because

he is unable to look after the safety of his own vehicles. If he is not prepared to accept responsibility for the vehicles on his own farm we reach a sad pass, for the farming community is supposed to give a good example to other people. If he is not prepared to face that responsibility —well, my word, there will be a lot of other people who will refuse to face their responsibility. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend was able to give us those startling, alarming figures of the number of unsuitable vehicles being run on our country roads and on the busy urban roads.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why it is that people who are supposed to have so much inteligence cannot see the inherent dangers in not recognising the principle that, if we are going to have a quality licensing system, we must have a man of the calibre of a transport manager in every firm, large or small. I should not mind if this attitude were delightful irresponsibility, but it is positively wanton irresponsibility. There were many times in the Committee upstairs when I was very pleased with hon. Members opposite, but I am bitterly disappointed with them tonight.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 278.

Division No. 189.]
AYES
[10.52 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Digby, Simon Wingfield



Astor, John
Bryan, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Doughty, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, C. B.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Bt. Hn. Edward


Balnlel, Lord
Campbell, Gordon
Eden, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshaiton)


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Belt, Ronald
Channon, H. P. G.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Bessell, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Bitten, John
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Fortescue, Tim


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Foster, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, David


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Currie, G. S. H.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dalkeith, Carl of
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Braine, Bernard
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Cower, Raymond


Bromley-Davetiport, Lt.-Col.SlrWalter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grant, Anthony




Grant-Ferris, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Royle, Anthony


Gurden, Harold
McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Roland


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macmilian, Maurice (Farnham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maddan, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maginnis, John E.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Neil
Sharpies, Richard


Harrison, Brian (Matdon)
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Frederick


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sinclair, Sir George


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stodart, Anthony


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hill, J. E. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)



Hooson, Emlyn
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Teeling, Sir William


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Dames Joan


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Page Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John
Walters, Dennis


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Kerby, Capt, Henry
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Klteon, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Lane, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wylie, N. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Younger, Hn. George


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dlield)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lubbock, Eric
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, R, W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
 Delargy, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Dell, Edmund


Alldritt, Walter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Peter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dlckens, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Cant, R. B.
Doboson, Ray


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carmichael, Nell
Doig, Peter


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Driberg, Tom



Barnes, Michael
Castlo, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunn, James A.


Bamett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Dunnett, Jack


Beaney, Alan
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bence, Cyril
Coleman, Donald
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Eadle, Alex


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bishop, E. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ellis, John


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Blienkinsop, Arthur
Cronih, John
Ennals, David


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ensor, David


Booth, Albert
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Boyden, James
Dalyell, Tarn
Faulds, Andrew


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Femyhough, E.


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Brown, Rt. Hn. Ceorge (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Forrester, John


Brown, Bob (N'C'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
de Freitaa, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fowler, Gerry







Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Galpem, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Gardner, Tony
McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Garrett, W. E.
MacCoil, James
Probert, Arthur


Cinsburg, David
MacDermot, Nial
Rankin, John


Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macdonald, A. H.
Rees, Meriyn


Gregory, Arnold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Reynolds, G. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Richard, Ivor


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hannan, William
MacMilIan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Roebuck, Roy


Hattersley, Roy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rose, Paul


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Heifer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J.p, w. (Huddersfield.E.)
Rowlands,. E. (Cardiff, N.)


Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
Ryan, John


Hilton, W. S.
Mapp, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Hooley, Frank
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Hough ton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Maxwell, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howie, W.
Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hoy, James
Mendelson, J. J.
Skeffington, Arthur


Huckfield, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Joseph



Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
 Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stonehouse, John


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hynd, John
Moonman, Eric
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Swain, Thomas


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
 Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swingler, Stephen


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverne, Dick


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Tomney, Frank


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Albert
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, Carol (Lswisham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Varley, Eric G.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
 Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Wallace, George


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Weitzman, David


Kelley, Richard
Oram, Albert E.
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
 Orme, Stanley
Whitaker, Ben


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lawson, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ledger, Ron
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, John (Reading)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Winnick, David


Lever, Harold (Cheerham)
Park, Trevor
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Yates, Victor


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence



Lomas, Kenneth
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Charles Grey and


Luard, Evan
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is no. 221.

Mr. Swingler: I understood that the next Amendment to be called was No. 223, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order. You are perfectly correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are two Government Amendments—Nos. 221 and 222—which meet points made by us in Committee. We hope that the Government will move them. However, they have been debated.

Perhaps that is why the Minister of State is having trouble.

Amendments made: No. 221, in page 84, line 25, leave out from ' each' to ' a' in line 26 and insert:
'place in the area of the authority which, when the licence is granted, will be an operating centre of the holder of the licence '

No. 222, in page 84, line 36, at end insert:
(1A) Where, at any time after an operator's l icence has been granted as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section by the licensing authority for any area, a place in that area


becomes an operating centre of the holder of the licence, that subsection shall, at the expiration of the period of three months beginning at that time, apply to the new operating centre as it applies to any operating centre which the holder of the licence has when the licence is granted.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 223, in page 85, line 9, at the end to insert:
'for the purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of this section the Licensing Authority shall be required to have regard to representations made to him by the applicant'.
When I tabled this Amendment, I did not imagine that it would occupy a great deal of time or that it was of particular significance. However, having listened to the previous debate and heard the answer of the Minister of Transport to the questions put from this side of the House, I am bound to say that I regard this Amendment as having particular significance. Neither the Minister, nor, apparently, any of his advisers, has the least idea about how the transport manager system will work. If they understood how it would work, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have said in his reply a few minutes ago that it would be possible for a local garage proprietor to be appointed by a local farmer to act as his transport manager. If this happened, the local garage proprietor would be responsible for the operation of the fleet in the sense that if there were a serious accident or defect the prosecution which would follow under later Clauses would be brought against him.
In these circumstances, when it has been made clear that the Minister has not yet had final consultations with industry, with the operators of fleets big or small, it is obviously essential that the Amendment be written into the Bill. As things stand, the licensing authority has a very wide discretion. Its powers can be exercised arbitrarily and without regard to the wishes or qualifications of the operator who may be making the application on behalf of the transport manager. When neither the Minister nor the House—nor anyone associated with the Bill—can really understand how the system will operate, it is essential that the person making the application for the licence should be able to make representations, which should be taken into account.
Under subsection (3) the licensing authority may decide that the responsibility for the transport manager's functions may be divided between two persons. Does this mean the farmer to whom we have referred and the local garage proprietor, the farmer and his wife, the managing director and his personal assistant? What does it mean? The answer is that we know that the person who will be the transport manager will, according to the White Paper at least, have to have certain qualifications. But they have not been spelt out, for the very good reason that there have been no consultations, and it is not possible even to know at present who would be suitable and acceptable, and who the licensing authority might decide in its discretion to appoint if it was asked to make such an appointment.
From the two subsections one understands that the whole of the discretionary powers rest with the licensing authority, and that the applicant does not have any right to make representations, or, if he has, there is no statutory obligation on the licensing authority to take any note or account of them in determining whether the transport manager's licence should be granted.
We are in a serious situation here, because it was impossible to discuss the Clause in Committee.
Under pressure of the guillotine on Report stage we are only able to deal with this matter superficially. In these circumstances, I believe it is vitally important that we should write in as much protection as we possibly can for the operators of vehicles who will be selecting people for the job of transport manager and submitting them to the licensing authority for that task.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but we did discuss this matter in Committee. I distinctly recollect making a statement about transport managers' licences, and in particular about our hope—and we have said this on many occasions—that in the industry there would be developed the qualifications and the methods of training that would be established later on. We have always said that it is not a matter for the Ministry of Transport but a matter for the industry to establish the professional


qualifications. It was in the light of that that I explained the nature of the proposition being made.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that we had a debate on this, but the Guillotine fell before we could go into any detail on this matter, and it is because of this that I am emphasising the point.
The Minister of State has, in fact, made my point for me. He has said that account will be taken of the representations that will be made to the Ministry in respect of the qualifications of the person who shall be appointed, or be allowed to be appointed, as transport manager. This is precisely what my Amendment seeks to do—to place on the licensing authority an obligation to consider the representations made to it by those persons who are applying for transport managers' licences in respect of the vehicles which they operate.
We could debate this at very great length but we are very short of time. I believe the purpose behind my Amendment is self-evident and that it must commend itself to the Minister of State because he is a reasonable man and he will appreciate the degree of anxiety that will be felt throughout industry, the fanning industry and the road haulage industry, as a consequence of the debate which took place earlier.
In these circumstances, where there is such a wide degree of uncertainty, I hope the Minister of State will assist us by accepting this Amendment which will at least ensure that representations shall be made to the licensing authority and that there will be a statutory obligation upon the licensing authority to take note of and have regard to these representations. In the present circumstances, it is clear to me that the operator is far more likely to know the consequences and the responsibilities than the licensing authority will, because it is so badly defined by the Minister's earlier statement.

Mr. Swingler: It would be highly regrettable if a subject on which we have had lengthy discussion over a long period of time with the trade, for example the Road Haulage Association, the Traders Road Transport Association and others, many of whom have desired for a long time to establish a professional standard

of transport manager, was to become jeopardised by misrepresentation or allegations that would prevent the progress we hope will be made, and which can only be made in co-operation with, and to some extent on the initiative of, the industry itself.
I have endeavoured previously to explain the modest nature of this proposal in the Bill. It really is a modest proposal for the introduction of the transport manager's licence in order to designate a person responsible for the efficiency of the fleet.
There is no need to accept the Amendment in any case, because it is already in the Bill. I would invite the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) to turn to Clause 58(3) which reads
A person applying for an operator's licence after the appointed day for the purposes of Section 61 of this Act shall also give to the licensing authority a statement of the person or persons and of the other matters which he proposes should be specified in his licence for meeting the requirements of that section.
That means that he can make representations. It is provided for precisely that purpose; and he can supply whatever information is required in connection with these provisions of the Bill. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a perfectly workable proposition. It will not in any way prevent anybody supplying any information or making whatever representations he may wish to make which are relevant to achieving the objects here. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that the interpretation of Clause 58(3) which I have given completely covers the point.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman is referring to Clause 58(3) of which I am well aware, but this is in relation to making application for operators licences. We are discussing in Clause 61, conditions as to transport managers' licences, which is something completely different. I accept that representations can be made in the case of operators' licences, but when it comes to the transport manager he may well be a separate individual, a separate entity.

Mr. Swingler: I do not want to read all the Sections of the Bill to the House, but Section 61 starts with the words:
In every operator's licence granted by a licensing authority…


and goes on to deal with the question of the nomination of a transport manager; and if the hon. Gentleman will refer back to Section 58(3) there are the words:
… for the purposes of Section 61 of this Act … a person or persons …
applying for operators' licences— and it is precisely referring to this. In every operator's licence and in every application for a transport manager's licence— far from being divorced, these two things go together. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that this is something divorced from the operator's licence, for it was emphasised again and again in Committee in connection with quality licensing that these two things went together, the operator's licence based on quality standards and criteria, and nomination and appointment of the transport manager responsible for the efficiency of the vehicles. They cannot be divorced. The hon. Gentleman must see that they are absolutely bound up with each other. I assure the hon. Gentleman that taking the application for the operator's licence and nomination of the transport manager in conjunction, there is the opportunity for him to make whatever representations he wishes in connection with persons or any other matters which he proposes should be specified. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that point is covered and the information that he wants to have supplied to the licensing authorities can and will be supplied in accordance with the statutory provision with which we are here concerned.

Mr. Awdry: The Minister of State has got it all wrong again which shows the harm that is done when a Committee stage is guillotined, for had there not been a Guillotine these points would have been ironed out. The Minister of State draws attention to Clause 58(3), which is said to be an answer to our point. The words are:
A person applying for an operator's licence after the appointed day for the purposes of section 61 of this Act shall also give to the licensing authority a statement of the person or persons and of the other matters which he proposes should be specified in his licence for meeting the requirements of that section.
That says representations shall be put forward. What we are seeking to do is to make certain that those representations

are properly regarded. Our Amendment says:
For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of this subsection the licensing authority shall be required to have regard to representations made"—
so if the argument of the Minister of State is good, which I doubt—

Mr. Swingler: Surely the hon. Gentleman who, unlike some others, took this Bill seriously, will have seen in Clause 58(3) a reference to Section 61, referring to the appointment of transport managers. If he says I am wrong, what is his explanation of that reference? It makes statutory provision for representations to the licensing authority precisely on the content of Clause 61. That is my last word.

Mr. Awdry: I accept that representations can be made. We are only asking that the licensing authority shall have regard to the representations. The difficulty we are in is that until this evening no one knew how the transport manager concept would work. We have now heard that a garage proprietor can be a transport manager and we were told later by the Minister that there are to be different qualifications for some managers. I got the impression that the Minister was making this up as he went along. If this is to work—and we hope that it will—there has to be a practical approach.
We rather agreed with the suggestions in Clause 61(3), and we think it will be sensible. There may be cases where it is wise to share the duties of transport manager between two people, but clearly if the licensing authority is to lay down these requirements and to participate in the management of the company that authority must pay fair regard to any representations put forward by the operator. If the Government are not prepared to write these straightforward and simple words into the Bill, it means that they have a theoretical rather than a practical approach. We are trying to make certain this works in practice, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman has not met the point by his reference to Clause 58(3). I hope that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) will press the Amendment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why cannot the Minister accept the words proposed if


they mean the same as the words that are already in the Bill? The first sentence of Clause 61(2) reads:
Unless in any case the licensing authority in his discretion otherwise determines
the person holding the operator's licence shall be in a position to submit the name and give the qualifications. The sentence provides that those can be disregarded if the licensing authority in his discretion thinks otherwise. Why not put in the paragraph that under the Statute he has to pay regard to the words put forward by the applicant? If the words mean the same thing as the hon. Gentleman has suggested he will not be giving anything away. If they do not he is using words to say something which should not be in the Bill.

Mr. G. Campbell: I was glad the Minister of State returned to our proceedings because he at least has been dealing with Clause 61 so far as it was touched on in Committee and with the question of transport managers' licences, whereas the Minister himself has just made it clear that he is new to the subject and was chancing his arm and getting it wrong. I realise that the Minister of State has had an enormous job during the period of the Bill and is perhaps somewhat dazed. I had to come to his rescue in almost moving two Government Amendments which otherwise might not have been made. The Minister has had to carry an enormous Bill with an incredible amount of content right the way through, because of changes in Ministers, with two coming and two going. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the point of the Amendment, which is similar to the one we also have on the Order Paper.
He has referred to Clause 58(3). That simply requires a bare statement by an applicant for an operator's licence of the particulars, including the name of the person who is to be the transport manager. The Amendment requires the licensing authority to have regard to information and the views given by the applicant concerning subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 61. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Hamar Nicholls) said, these are different. Subsection (2) deals with the question of discretion. It gives the licensing authority

discretion to appoint one transport manager for two or more operating centres. This is quite different from Clause 58(3). It is within the discretion of the licensing authority to say that one transport manager can be responsible for vehicles in more than one operating centre. It puts it the other way round, but it gives the licensing authority that discretion.
Subsection (3) goes into the question of who is to bear direct responsibility for operation and maintenance. It also makes provision for the sharing of this between transport managers. Two transport managers can be responsible for operation and maintenance, again within the discretion of the licensing authority. These are quite different but important points. These are matters in which the applicant for the operator's licence and the necessary transport manager's licence is very concerned about. That is why the words we have suggested have a great deal more meaning than Clause 58(3).
We come back to the suggestion by the Minister, out of the blue—probably it was a gaff and he quickly tried to cover it up—that a neighbouring garage could hold a transport manager's licence and therefore have direct responsibility for the operation as well as the maintenance of a vehicle. No doubt the Minister will try to continue to withdraw from that position. If it were correct, and this is a new aspect which we have not heard before on transport managers' licences, subsection (3) becomes even more important because there would be the question of how much of the operation and maintenance would be taken on by the local servicing garage and how much the farmer with the single vehicle would have to be responsible. They would both have to have transport managers' licences.
These are important matters—and I have pointed out how much is involved —which the licensing authorities should have to have regard to and about which they should also consider representations. I therefore encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) is making heavy weather of this issue. The debate has been along the same lines


and has covered the same ground as the debate on the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, when he spent an hour on a small though important point in relation to road safety.
I am astonished that we should have to have gone into the lobby in connection with quality licensing and on a question on which everyone said they were agreed. The truth is that the Opposition are not prepared to provide the tool that will hold the person owning a vehicle as the person responsible for keeping it in a state of good repair, even though they say they accept the concept of quality licensing. They want the old system whereby the driver of the vehicle had the burden to carry. We are moving away from that, and the Bill will raise our sights to something very much better, but that former system is what some people are favouring, even if they do it unthinkingly, not knowing it.
11.30 p.m.
Confusion was brought into the debate by the advice of a lawyer. Every time lawyers speak, they make confusion worse confounded. Common sense is what we need to apply here, and the common sense of the ordinary people is that there must be fewer deaths than there are on the roads because vehicles are criminally not maintained properly. The ordinary people have made up their minds about that.
Clause 58 and Clause 61 should be accepted in common sense. The provisions for operators' licences and transport managers' licences are clearly set out. The applicant can be heard and that should make it easier for the applicant in obtaining qualification. There is clear indication of that in Clause 61(6). Are hon Members opposite so full of suspicion that they do not trust this part of the Bill? What does it say?
The Minister may by regulations modify the requirements of subsections (1) to (4)"—
dealing with the licences—
in any respect, or substitute for any of them such other requirements relating to transport managers' licences as may be specified in the regulations.".
Regulations can be brought forward at any time Again and again the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have explained that all these

discussions are taking place with the trade organisations, to get their advice, and that they are prepared to accept their advice, and the organisations include the Road Haulage Association which has affinity with the Tory Party, and, may be, other people in this House. At any rate, many people are supporting these provisions for strengthening quality licensing, and I have not had a single letter which is not in favour of quality licensing.
I hope the Minister of State will stick to his guns—I know he will—and keep this part of the Bill as strong as we want it to be.

Mr. Swingler: I certainly hearken to the plea of my hon. Friend. I know he would not suspect me—nor would anybody, I hope—of shrinking from the conflicts and struggles inevitable on the main issues involved in this Bill, but I would personally find it undesirable that we should have to go through a series of Divisions on an issue on which, I thought, there were no party politics or party divisions. They would certainly compromise and might set back for quite a long time a proposal which, I thought, was generally accepted as a progressive proposal, and an essential part of quality licensing, namely, the beginning, initial, extremely modest, step, towards the establishment of transport managers with professional standards by the introduction of transport managers' licences.
I do not retract in any way from what I have said, that the matter is covered in Clause 58(3), and those who have proper faith in the discretion of the licensing authorities—and many of these matters must be decided in a discretionary way by the independent statutory licensing authorities, who must make judgments on these matters—will regard it as absurd if we provide in the Bill for the making of representations to the licensing authorities, and spring to the assumption that the licensing authorities are not going to have due regard to those representations for which we by Statute have provided.
Nevertheless, this point is apparently being pressed further in relation to the contents of Clause 61. I hope that hon. Members will not complain, if further things are done, about repetitions in the Bill or about extending the length of the Bill, because of their insistence on


saying the same thing more than once through the columns of the Bill. But on the basis of this, and if it might have the effect of it not being necessary to have a party Division—unless the Opposition is now moving towards opposing the concept of transport managers' licensing— and if it will have the effect of avoiding the wrong impression outside, I undertake to consider the Amendment that has been put down here and the possibility of inserting words to convey the impression at a later stage in the Bill—

Mr. G. Campbell: I thank the Minister—

Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are having the Report stage of the Transport Bill. Is it in order for Members on both sides of the House, including Ministers and Front Bench spokesmen on the other side, to speak two or three times on each Amendment without the permission of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Minister is entitled on Report stage to speak more than once. The mover of an Amendment has a right of reply. At the present moment, the hon. Member is asking the Minister for clarification of an important statement which he has just made.

Mr. G. Campbell: Further to the point of order and for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, I have spoken only once on this Amendment, and on the others I have only spoken a second time if I have been the mover. I know of no occasion during this evening when there has been any departure from the rules which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have just mentioned.

Mr. Manuel: You did not move this Amendment.

Mr. Campbell: No. But the Minister had given way to me before he had finished.

Hon. Members: He had sat down.

Mr. Campbell: If the Minister has not given way, I shall ask him to give an opportunity.

Mr. Swingler: Mr. Swingler indicated dissent.

Mr. Campbell: The Minister had given way in order that I could—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are plenty of precedents, where a Minister has made an important statement designed to enable an Amendment to be withdrawn, for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to ask for a point of clarification.

Mr. Campbell: I rose to be courteous and to thank the Minister—that was all —for what he has said on this Amendment, because I wanted to clarify our view on this which, again, is not against the safety measures in the Bill, but is an attempt to improve the machinery, which is what both sides of the House wish to do. Therefore, we are grateful that he is prepared to consider the addition of this point.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister of State has gone a long way to meet the point that we were trying to make.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect to the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Deputy Speaker, defining when it is permissible under the rules of this House for an hon. Member to address the House more than once during the Report stage, I paid great attention to what you said about seeking elucidation and the Minister's right to speak more than once with the permission of the House. But certainly if you are going to allow the hon. Member for Bodwin (Mr. Bessell)—

Hon. Members: He moved the Amendment.

Mr. Price: Contrary to the rules of this House, the hon. Member for Bodmin has addressed us twice already. He is now being called a third time. In my submission, that is contrary to Standing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have said already that it is perfectly in order for an hon. Member who moves an Amendment on Report to speak a second time. That is what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is doing.

Mr. Bessell: I am merely seeking to reply to the debate, which is well understood practice. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has been here a lot longer than I have and should know that.
I join with the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) in welcoming the words of the Minister of State,


and I would echo the tribute paid to him. He has carried a tremendous burden throughout our proceedings, and it appears that he has grasped the point which was not wholly clear to his right hon. Friend the Minister, though I have some doubts about the interpretation which he has placed upon Clause 58 and its relationship to Clause 51.
He has given us an assurance that he will look at the matter again and will investigate the point which has been raised to see whether we on this side of the House are right. In view of that, I have no intention of pressing the Amendment. However, the hon. Gentleman would help matters considerably if he took to heart the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who said that, if the provision is in the Bill already, no harm can result from accepting the Amendment. On the other hand, if it is not, clearly the Amendment is a matter of substance. In reconsidering the matter, I am confident that the Minister of State will take that into account.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: No. 225, in page 86, line 2, leave out 'in any area '.

No. 226, in page 86, line 6 [Clause 61], leave out from 'licence' to 'is' in line 7 and insert:
'held by him'—[Mr. Carmichael.]

No. 227, in page 86, line 9 [Clause 61], leave out from 'required' to 'in' in line 10 and insert:
'by virtue of subsection (1) or (1A) of this section to be specified'.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 231 in page 86, line 16 at end insert:
(9) The provisions of subsection (7) of this section shall not apply if the authorised vehicle is used in connection with any emergency caused by fire, shipwreck or any circumstances involving danger to or loss of human life.
At least four Amendments, which are all very similar, seek to give certain exemptions from the conditions of operators' licences so that, if the driver of a vehicle is faced with an emergency, he can meet it without infringing the law relating to operators' licences.
A number of different types of emergencies are referred to in the various Amendments, such as fire, shipwreck, circumstances involving danger to or loss of human life, a road accident, some national emergency unspecified, or an emergency where the driver of a vehicle has been asked to perform a certain duty by a chief constable. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that a driver would be able to perform an errand of mercy to save human life or contend with some unforeseen circumstances without infringing the conditions of his operator's licence.
On one occasion I was asked by a constable who had stopped a lorry which had infringed the law to perform a duty, namely, to try to 'phone the local police station and then tell him whether I had been successful in getting through. This type of request might be made to the operator of a vehicle which might infringe the rules.
These are sensible Amendments and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate why the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has put forward these Amendments, but they are not the right way to deal with these circumstances, on which we have had many discussions. Cases of this sort are more properly dealt with by making provisions for exemptions. And in Clause 56(2) the Minister has the power to make exemptions by regulation. Moreover, the licensing authorities have the power to grant temporary authority in an emergency for the use of vehicles in whatever way necessary. In cases of national emergency, the licensing authorities would usually become regional transport commissioners and would have complete power to authorise the use of vehicles in all kinds of circumstances.
The licensing authorities have, therefore, this considerable discretion in cases of national emergency and a discretion for authorising the temporary use of vehicles in other kinds of emergency. Suppose that a part of the country were to suffer a disastrous flood. The licensing authorities would have power to vary the terms of licences at short notice to cope with a critical situation. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has power to make


exemptions in the case of those who should be properly exempted from the licensing provisions. That is the proper way to deal with the sort of cases about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there will be general exemptions included in the wording of the licences, or that in the case of an emergency the local licensing authority will make a public statement, perhaps, on television to the effect that the conditions of licences are suspended? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage these exemptions being implemented?

Mr. Swingler: In two ways. First, my right hon. Friend has power to make exemptions in the ordinary way by issuing regulations. Something which will fall for consideration when Parliament has approved this Bill is whether there should be exemption by regulation of certain operations by people from the licensing provisions. Secondly, cases of emergency and crisis in particular parts of the country are dealt with by the use of the discretionary power of the licensing authorities. In those circumstances, the licensing authorities are able, at the shortest possible notice, to vary the conditions and to permit the use of vehicles in all circumstances as the situation demands.
We have had a system of licensing for over 30 years. We have a good deal of experience of dealing with this sort of situation, and licensing authorities are accustomed to varying conditions to accord with emergencies.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I can understand licensing authorities using their discretion in cases of emergency, but would the Minister take the House into his confidence? Does he contemplate that he will use the power to bring in regulations granting exemptions? Some

thought must have been given to this matter in the formulation of the Clause.

Mr. Swingler: I am only saying that the Minister has the power. I do not want anybody to jump to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is thinking of using it immediately. We think that it is right that the power to grant exemptions should exist, but in the introduction of the quality licensing system we are most anxious to achieve universality, to make the conditions workable, and to apply them for the sake of road safety in all respects. It is right that there should be a fall-back position so that the Minister can grant exemptions if they prove desirable, as it is also right that the licensing authorities should have discretionary power to vary all licensing conditions to cope with emergencies.

Mr. James Davidson: The Minister's answer is reassuring in the sense that his intentions concerning emergencies are right. But I do not think that it is altogether satisfactory, because he has not answered the point of what happens in an emergency when there is not time for the licensing authority to take action and for the Minister to exercise his powers. There should be a provision in the Bill allowing exemption from the conditions of an operator's licence in an unforeseen emergency. Exemption in cases such as a large fire, where there is not time to get in touch with the necessary authorities, should be written into the Bill.
Unless the Minister is prepared to say that he will at least look at this with a view to writing specific Clauses on the matter into the Bill, we must press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 276.

Division No. 190.]
AYES
 [11.53 p.m. 


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Astor, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bruce-Gardynle, J.


Balrriel, Lord
Blaker, Peter

Bryan, Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony (Colchester)



Beamish, col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Sir Clive
Bull us, Sir Eric




Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Campbell, Gordon
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Peyton, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Channon, H. P. G.
Hooson, Emlyn
Pink, R. Bonner


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Clark, Henry
Homby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clegg, Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Cortield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthome)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jenkln, Patrick (Woodford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Crouch, David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cunningham, sir Knox
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Currie, G. B. H.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Datkeith, Earl of
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony


Deedcs, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Doughty, Chales
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn, Sir Alec
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Drayson, G. B.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharpies, Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Silvester, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Eliiott, R.W.(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
smith, Dudley(W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslone)
smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp; Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony


Fisher, Nigel
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Teeling, Sir William


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Goodftew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Cower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Cresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
Webster, David


Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)-


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nlcholls, Sir Harmar
Wolrige-Gortfon, Patrick


Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nott, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wylie, N. R.


Hawkins, Paul
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heseltine, Michael
Pardoe, John
Mr. Peter Bessell and Mr. James Davidson.


Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clirheroe)





NOES


Albu, Austen
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brooks, Edwin


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
 Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Alldritt, Walter
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D, (G'gow, Provan)


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, F.
Brown, R. W. (Shorecfitch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Booth, Albert
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boyden, James
Cant, R. B.


Barnes, Michael
Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Carmichael, Neil


Bamett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bence, Cyril
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara







Coe, Denis
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coleman, Donald
Hynd, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Concannon, J. D.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Palmer, Arthur


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Park, Trevor


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyel I, Tarn
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huff, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
 Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Judd, Frank
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Keliey, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)
Rankin, John


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
REES, Merlyn


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Reynolds, G. W.


Dewar, Donald
Ledger, Ron
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Richard, Ivor


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Cwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Roebuck Roy


Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ryan, John


Eills, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


English, Michael
McCann, John
Sheldon, Robert


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silikin, Rt. Hn. John(Deptford)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardely)
Mckay, Mrs. Margaret
Silikin,Rt. Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ferny hough, E.
Mackie, John
Skeffington Arthur


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Fotey, Maurice
MacMillian, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Jullian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs Leslie


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
stonehouse John


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Peter (Perston, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fraser,John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Freeson, Reginald
Mallallieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Swinger, Stepen


Galpern, Sir Myer
Manuel, Archie
Taverne, Dick


Gardner, Tony
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Geroge


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Geroge


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tinn, James


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tomney, Frank


Gregory, Arnold
Maxwell, Robert
Urwin, T.W.


Grey, Charles (Duharam)
Mayhew, Chirstopher
Varley, Eric G.


Groffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Harlod (Doncaster)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, Geroge


Hamling, William
Millier, Dr. M. S.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecin &amp; Randor)


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S't'pton, Test)
Weitzman, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Wellbeloved, James


Haseldine, Norman
Moonman, Eric



Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Heffer, Eric S
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hooley Frank
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Neal, Harlod
Willis, Rt. Hn. Geroge


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Winnick, David


Howie, W.
Norwood, Christopher
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric
Yates, Victor


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian



Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. Neil McBride.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas

Clause 62

CONDITIONS AS TO MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE NOTIFIED TO LICENSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Bessell: I beg to move Amendment No. 235, in page 86, line 18, after ' such ', insert ' reasonable '.
This Amendment does not have any great significance. The subsection reads:
A licensing authority, in granting an operator's licence, may attach thereto such conditions as he thinks fit for requiring the holder to inform him—
Then we have a series of things including changes
of a kind specified in the conditions, in the organisation, management or ownership of the trade or business in the course of which the authorised vehicles are used
and various other matters spelt out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and the penalties which apply under subsection (2). It seems fair to insert between the words "such" and "conditions" the word "reasonable". This would prevent a licensing authority from imposing any very severe conditions which might inhibit any person from making an application in circumstances which might make it difficult for him to obtain a licence. I do not pretend that the Amendment is of great significance, but it might reassure many people who are anxious that they should not have difficulty in obtaining a licence.

Mr. Carmichael: It is reasonable to remove doubts in people's minds but the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman is not the best. Apart from the fact that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what meaning to attach to the word "reasonable" in this

context, the subsection already sets out in some detail in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) the types of conditions which the licensing authority may attach to a licence. Any conditions not falling within the description of those paragraphs would not in any case be allowed.

If an applicant felt that certain of the conditions appeared unreasonable, although falling within the scope of the subsection, he could, under Clause 66(l)(a), appeal to the Minister against the imposition of those conditions. The applicant is, therefore, well protected in his right of appeal and in the conditions laid down in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I hope that, on my assurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: I am grateful for that explanation. I readily admit that this is the kind of point we would have discussed in Standing Committee had we been able to do so. The hon. Gentleman's answer, particularly in relation to the appeal machinery, is satisfactory, and in these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marsh: While the night is still young, I beg to move,
That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [12th December] {Sittings of the House):—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 227.

Division No. 191.]
AYES
[12.5 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boydern, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Alldritt, Walter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Schotefield
Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Cronin, John


Archer, Peter
Brooks, Edwin
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dalyell, Tarn


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Barnes, Michael
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Creen)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Ifor (Cower)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
 Cant, R. B.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Delargy, Hugh


Bishop, E. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dell, Edmund


Blackburn, F.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis
Dewar, Donald


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Coleman, Donald
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.
Dickens, James




Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Ledger, Ron
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price, William (Rugby)


Ellis, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rankin, John


Enrols, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn


Ensor, David
Lipton, Marcus
Reynolds, G. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Faulds, Andrew
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Femyhough, E.
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McCann, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ford, Ben
MacColl, James
Roebuck, Roy


Forrester, John
MacDermot, Niall
Rose, Paul


Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Ryan, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm

Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mallalieu, J.P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
 Snow, Julian


Hamling, William
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth
Stonehouse, John


Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Haseldine, Norman
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hattersley, Roy
Maxwell, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Hazell, Bert
Mayhew, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, J. J.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.Ceorge(Cardiff,W.)


Hilton, W. s.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tomney, Frank


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Miline, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Varley, Eric G.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Howie, W.
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hoy, James
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Huckfleld, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, Albert
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Neal, Harold
Whitaker, Ben


Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stan
Whitlock, William


Hynd, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George (Edinburgh,E.)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras,S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Winnick, David


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen,Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
 Page, Derek (King's Lynn)



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Palmer, Arthur



Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Charles R. Morris and Mr. loan L. Evans


Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)





NOES


Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John


Astor, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Black, Sir Cyril


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
 Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Bermett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Body, Richard


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bossom, Sir Cllve


Balniel, Lord
Bessell, Peter
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John




Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pardoe, John


Brewis, John
Harvie Anderton, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clltheroe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Ian


Bruce-Gardy ne, J.
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hilley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Campbell, Cordon
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Quermell, Miss J. M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, Henry
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfteld, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Costam, A. p.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
st. John-Stevas, Norman


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Currle, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharpies, Richard


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp; L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lambton, Viscount
Smith,John (London &amp; W'minster)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


Doughty, Charles
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)



Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
LIoyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langs tone)
Tapsell, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshallon)
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow.Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Mackenzie,AIasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Teellng, Sir William


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Temple, John M.


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret



Farr, John
Macmillian, Maurice (Farnham)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fletcher-Coolie, Charles
Maglnnls, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Forteecue, Tim
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Wall, Patrick


Caibraith, Hn. T. G.
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Misoampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar
Wodd, Rt. Hn Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Grieve, Percy
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
worsley, Marcus


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wylie, N. R.


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Onslow, Cranley



Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Anthony Royle.


Harrison, Brian (MaMon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Orders of the Day — BADMINTON RAILWAY STATION (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]

2.20 a.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I am grateful for the oppor-

tunity to discuss the Minister's decision to close the only main line railway station in my constituency. I am bound to say that my gratitude would be a good deal more profound if, in taking this opportunity, I was not adding yet more to the ludicrous Parliamentary burden with which the Government have overburdened Parliament and insulted the

country. But, as I said, Badminton station is the only main line station in my constituency, and, in turn, my constituency must be the largest in the West Country and the most rapidly growing; and, indeed, it must be one of the most rapidly growing constituencies in the country as a whole. So far as I can recollect, when I came into this House in 1955 the electorate was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 54,000 and it is now 80,000, and as a large proportion of the increase in population has been from young married couples moving in there is a larger proportion of young people under 21 than in the national average. This, of course, results in the population as a whole increasing even faster than the electorate has done.

Badminton station has hitherto provided an excellent return service to London for anyone wishing to go up for the day, as many people do, as well, of course, as an admirable service for those people wishing to go to London or through London for longer periods. There is a less convenient but nevertheless useful service to South Wales, which is quite obviously readily improvable. But in the recent past the area served has been a predominantly rural one which can be sub-divided into three; namely, the Luckington-Sherston area, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippen-ham (Mr. Awdry), the Hawksbury-Hilles-ley-Wootton-under-Edge area, which is partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), and the Yate-Chipping Sodbury area in my constituency.

The important fact is that in recent years this catchment area has been rapidly changing in character and rapidly increasing in extent. In the first place, the Yate-Chipping Sodbury area—two relatively small towns now joined into one—is being formed into a new town; admittedly, not a statutory new town but in every sense of the term a new town. The population which was only 4,000 six years ago is now 13,000. The annual increase is something like 1,000 a year. The first phase target is a population of 30,000 rising eventually to something like 70,000. Those two small towns were formerly served by their own railway stations, on

at Chipping Sodbury and one at Yate. Both have now been closed. I want to stress that I am not so much concerned with the retention of Badminton, as with the retention of Badminton or the reinstatement of a station at Yate or Chipping Sodbury.

In the second place, the recent completion of the stretch of the M4 between the A38 at Almondsbury and the A46 near Donington Park, which is very close to Badminton, has brought in practically the whole of the rest of my constituency and made it closer in time, and very substantially closer in time, to Badminton than these areas are to the only alternative left, namely, Bristol Temple Meads. This, of course, has meant that there is now a population—admittedly, there are parts of my constituency which are not affected, but they are offset by parts of my hon. Friend's constituency which are affected—of something like 90,000 which can be served by Badminton, and which does not have any other station in the neighbourhood. Incidentally, this area includes another small town of Thorn-bury which is undergoing an expansion similar to that of a sizeable new town, as is happening at Chipping Sodbury and Yate.

So we now have a situation in which, when we ask what is going to happen to the train-travelling public in this area, there is only one obvious answer. The great bulk of them, who are only just beginning to realise the advantages of getting across to Badminton, will revert to the use of Temple Meads. We shall have a situation where, instead of encouraging people to drive away from Bristol on the relatively uncrowded approach roads and then on the M4, which is more than adequate, they will be forced to drive into the already over-congested streets of Bristol to a railway station where the parking facilities are inadequate, and which can be extended only at the enormous expense which is always associated with the redevelopment of central areas.

I suggest that, if there is one lesson which we ought to have learned in the last 10 years, it is the lesson of the enormous difficulties and expense of relieving congestion of traffic in urban areas and providing adequate parking space. It is true to say that at Badminton there is parking space, because


the old goods yard is virtually unlimited and in any case it can be extended ad lib at very small expense, because the surrounding land is open land.

We have a situation in which a closure has been decided upon apparently from the purely narrow point of view of the railway authorities, without any consideration of the broader planning of the area. It is a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, and of the Ministry of Transport not even associating its highways department with its railways department.

It is true that, in the areas more immediately close to Badminton, there are alternative stations. Apart from Temple Meads, there are Bath, Chippenham, Swindon and Stroud. But the same considerations apply to them, except that in some cases they are more difficult to overcome.

In Bath, not only would there be the same heavy cost of improving traffic routes against congestion and providing parking space, but there is the irreparable loss which would result by virtue of damage to one of our most beautiful English cities. In Swindon, I am told that the bus takes something like 1½ to 2 hours from Chipping Sodbury, which is the nearest centre to it. In Stroud, it is rumoured that the railway authorities already are contemplating cutting down services because it is too expensive to repair the tunnel between Stroud and Kemble, and it is too far away to serve anywhere except Wootton-under-Edge, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.

We have a position which, whatever its merits from the point of view of the railways, has none from the point of view of town and country planning. The railways are making a staggering financial loss. Badminton station shows a profit. Are they really in a position to turn up their noses at any profit in this day and age?

They say that they will have to have capital expenditure to remove the two links coming into the platforms, and then extend the platforms. But the links have to be removed, anyhow. If the railways are right in saying that the number of passengers off any one train is fairly small, a very modest expansion of the platforms would be adequate, given the

use of a little ingenuity in labelling the carriages from which passengers could alight opposite the platform. But if the potential is as great as I believe it to be and a more ambitious extension of the platforms is justified, they will undoubtedly prove a good investment. But most Government bodies and nationalised industries these days want to have it both ways. That is one of the reasons why the public are so cynical about the desire of the railway authorities to serve the public rather than run a welfare state for their employees being genuine.

My second ground of complaint is that it is very problematical whether the railways' view is correct that, because many people go by car to Badminton, they will merely go by car to one of the other stations and they will not lose any profit. The fact is that people do get put off by congested streets and parking difficulties, and have reached the stage where they believe that the railway authorities are so uninterested in meeting their needs that they would prefer to motor all the way and meet the congestion at the other end, and have the advantage of having their car available when they get there.

My third complaint is the ludicrous nonsense that inquiries before the transport users' consultative committees have become. They are entitled to look only at the question of hardship. I am not denying that there is hardship here. When people from the country areas with luggage or children and prams are forced to stagger on to a bus, on which there is no sort of accommodation for the sort of thing, when they generally end up at bus stations well away from the railway stations, and when there is no porter to help them, of course there is hardship. There is also hardship for the person who has been able to get to the railway station for a 4s. 6d. taxi journey and is now charged 25s. But the committees should be able to consider the wider questions to which I have referred.

It is said that there is alternative public transport. There is a service to Swindon, but it is every two hours, and does not connect with London trains. There is a bus service to Chippenham, but it takes 1½ hours, and there are only three buses a day. There is a bus service to Bristol, but one cannot get back by


night, and must change at Broadmead central bus station to get to Temple Meads. This is the sort of bogus answer given. We are told that there may be hardship, but that it can easily be met by a totally inadequate bus service.

I realise that under the present legislation there may be some difficulty in rescinding a decision, but there is no difficulty in ensuring that one or other of these three stations remains open. If there is, the Government cannot complain that they have not had the opportunity in the marathon Transport Bill to put that right.

I beg the Minister to realise that I am not making a plea for an unprofitable service. I would not do that. I do not believe in running the railways or anything else as a sort of welfare service, but this profitable line could be made much more profitable with a little ingenuity and imagination. To my way of thinking the decision is a relic of the ideas that because we inherited railway stations in the middle of our towns that is the only way in which we should in future organise our railway stations. The whole trend of town planning today is for people to move out of the centres and hand them over to business and commercial use, living more and more on the peripheries. This makes the railway stations that service the peripheries in many cases infinitely preferable to those in the centre.

I hope that the Ministry of Transport will occasionally think of something other than a rather bogus policy of trying to make a particular railway line a little more convenient to the railway authorities and instead consider the wider situation and the enormous extra costs that may be thrown on the city authorities in widening the roads in Bristol and providing adequate parking space.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has performed a public service in calling attention to this astonishing and perverse decision of the railways to close Badminton station. He has, in particular, called attention to the planning anomaly, which we can be sure, unfortunately, whatever the Minister

may gallantly say, has not been considered in any degree by the railway authorities, who have neither the power nor the interest to consider town planning as a whole.
May I refer to some of the detail? I have an interest to declare in that this is the station which I normally use, as do a large number of my constituents living in the southern part of my constituency who cannot conveniently get to Stroud or Gloucester in order to get to other points. The point about inconvenience is valid. To say that someone carrying luggage and going to London for the day can catch a bus which can take two hours to get to a place where there is not a train to meet it is a most futile argument which is always put forward at transport inquiries, as though it had some validity. It is an insult to our intelligence to think that the buses provide an alternative to getting to the station.
A short time ago, when the Secretary of State for Education visited Dursley, he was happy to be able to get to Badminton to enable him to catch an aeroplane to Paris. It was the only possibility he had of catching a train in order to perform his duties. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recently started a tour of the West Country he, too, found Badminton most convenient as a starting point. Therefore, it is not just ordinary people but the gentlemen who use Badminton when carrying out their public duties.
The decision to close the station on planning and convenience grounds and financial grounds—and this station makes a profit for the railways, which should be happy to make a penny considering how much they lose on other operations—should be reconsidered. I shall think twice about motoring to Chippenham to catch the alternative train. I shall take my allowance from the Fees Office for motoring and face the congestion of London rather than take the railways' trains.

12.37 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) for raising this subject. I know of his keen interest in it from the many


letters which he has written since the proposal was published. This affords me the opportunity to set before the House some of the factors involved in the policy now being worked out to place the finances of the Railways Board on a new footing. As hon. Members know, the intention is that, after allowing for proposed social grants, the Railways Board should yearly maintain a break-even position. This will require most detailed scrutiny by the management of operating costs and efficiency. In this process, the continued operation of even a single station may play a magnificent part.
I come to the Government's responsibility. The wording of the Motion leads me first to point out that the initiative for closure of stations or lines comes from the Railways Board, not the Government. Had there been no objections, the Minister would not have come into this issue. Since there were objections, the Minister gave full and careful consideration to the issues of hardship examined by the transport users consultative committee for the area. He has consulted his colleagues and taken advice from the economic planning council for the region, the most important advice any Minister could take into consideration. The Minister is concerned to assess whether issues raised in the examination provide any overriding reason why the Railways Board should not be permitted to proceed with closure. In this case, none of the issues raised provide a valid case for interfering with the decision to close the station.
What are the facts? On the face of it, as the hon. Member has said, and as mentioned by many objectors, here was a station that was earning its keep. According to figures furnished to objectors by the Railways Board, annual originating revenue was some £5,400, while direct costs, apportioned between terminal, track and signalling, only amounted to £2,720. But more significant were the figures for renewals required to permanent way and buildings, amounting to £12,250 over the next five years.
Some objectors have said that this is little more than two years' revenue from traffic at the station. But an essential part of the case advanced by the Railways Board is that if the station closed, the bulk of this revenue would not be lost to the railway.
The hon. Member has referred to the many of his constituents who use the station, but the facts hardly bear this out. The April average figures for Mondays to Fridays for down trains are four joining and 20 alighting, and the July figures eight joining and 24 alighting. For up trains the figures are 13 joining and two alighting, and 20 joining and three alighting. I hardly find this, by any stretch of the imagination, to be a great many of the hon. Member's constituents.
More than 80 per cent, of the objections from individuals showed that they were car owners or passengers in private cars. The Board could reasonably assume that the majority of such users will continue to travel by car to one of the other railheads, either Bristol, Bath, Chippen-ham, Swindon or Kemble. I cannot understand the hon. Member's argument on planning grounds. Is he suggesting that a large part of the populace of Bristol wanting to travel to London would travel to Badminton and then travel up from there?

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the map he will see that a very large part of the people he thinks live in Bristol are, in question of time, much closer to Badminton. And as it becomes more difficult to move in the streets of Bristol, the advantages of Badminton become very great indeed.

Mr. Brown: I will come to the question of the increased population in the immediate area later on. But it seems reasonable, as I have already stated, for the Board to make this assumption.
Then, when the M4 motorway is completed, it is reasonable to think that many more people might decide to travel all the way to South Wales or London by car. But for the present it could reasonably be assumed that the bulk of the revenue which previously originated at Badminton would be retained for the railway by the use of alternative railheads.
What follows from this? The avoidance of renewals to track and buildings at a cost of £12,250 would become a significant item on the credit side in the formidable task of achieving a breakeven position. The hon. Member might well say candle-ends, but as we have heard from hon. Members opposite so


many times in the past, the accumulation of candle-ends can make a far from negligible impact on the operating costs of the railways.

Mr. Corfield: I do not think it is candle-ends, but I think the estimate of costs is bogus.

Mr. Brown: We can go into that another time. The argument on the relative powers of the T.U.C.C. is not a new argument, and the hon. Member must appreciate that when his party were in Government the same complaint was raised. I did not notice any particular effort by the Government of the hon Gentleman to alter the set-up of the T.U.C.Cs. in this respect. The T.U.C.C. has carefuly sifted the evidence of 173 objectors and has come to the general conclusion that only inconvenience would result to the former users of this station Naturally, in some cases this must amount to hardship but it is the job of the Minister to determine the public good against the hardship to possibly a very small number of individuals.
The economic implications have been mentioned, and, turning to the wider implications of this closure on development in the area, which the hon. Gentleman himself has raised in previous correspondence, I would assure hon. Members opposite that these issues were carefully examined by the Economic Planning Council for the South West and by my right hon. Friend's colleagues in other Departments. The advice given was unanimous that this closure would have no significant effect on economic planning or on development in the area.
The Minister was aware, of course, that there was a rapidly expanding development in the Chipping Sodbury-Yate area, to which the hon. Member has referred; and for this very reason my right hon. Friend has given no consent to the disposal of the Yate station, realising that at some time in the future there might well be a case for a reopening of a passenger service from this station. It is also the case that the Railways Board In the future would not be free to dispose of the site of Badminton station without the Minister's prior consent; and this, of course, would be given only after careful consultation with the South West

Economic Planning Council. I would suggest this must clearly safeguard the position for the future.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to alternative bus services, and the connections to the alternative railheads of Chip-penham and Swindon. The hon. Gentleman has been informed—and I regret, and would apologise for the fact, that the letter may not have reached him much before the answer to this debate—that the existing bus services are not specifically designed to make good connections with main line trains at these stations; and on the evidence considered by the Minister it did not appear that there will be sufficient ex-rail users making use of these services to justify revision of the time-tables, with all that this implies.
I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friends the points which have been made so persuasively by hon. Members in this debate, and they will be studied with the greatest care. It may be that some adjustment to the conditions of consent will be required in the future. If the need can be plainly shown, we shall act expeditiously to remedy any defects. But I feel bound to repeat that my right hon. Friend is faced with the need only to withhold consent from closure proposals by the Railways Board in cases where it can be clearly shown that the opposing arguments, whether on hardship or economic grounds, are in the highest degree compelling and affect a substantial section of the community which is not so in this case.

Mr. Kershaw: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking about destruction of buildings? When another branch line in my constituency was closed about a year ago, bulldozers moved in during the next week and made impossible reinstatement of the line. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that that will not happen at Badminton?

Mr. Brown: I have said that the demolition of the station would need to have the consent of the Minister.

The debate having been concluded, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

MR. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at ten minutes to One o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Order.